[PeterisP]

It's a bit like the safe exactly because there's a lot of actual existing precedent where they do not "just open the safe" but require the defendant to produce the key/code to the safe; and instead of attempting to breach the safe, hold the defendant jailed for contempt if they refuse to do so.

In this particular case the authorities are explicitly arguing that there's no good reason to use a different process for passwords as they currently use for safes, and this (requiring the defendant to unlock it) is the standard procedure, not drilling the safe open.