Hey, it gets better. This was his work phone. One of three phones he had, the other two having been purposefully destroyed and while this one too could have been destroyed, he didn't bother.
Which is to say, it almost certainly has nothing on it of intelligence value. So the idea that this is "just for this case" is a falsehood. Apparently the government is seeking unlocks in other cases and this is the one they think they can get the public behind, even though it probably won't give them anything of use.
Various states have also indicated their intent to use this case as a precedent to get unlocks of their own in various ongoing prosecutions. So the end result, should the government win this one, will definitely be that phones won't be able to be secure at all. Securing them and then being forced by the government to spend time, money, and materials to un-secure them whenever asked would be a seriously bad financial investment. It would make much more business sense to not bother securing them and citing the government as the reason why they cannot secure them and wash their hands of any legal liability for hackers getting into people's phones.
And for those who say there is a middle ground, there really isn't. The real hackers out there are smarter than the people we have working for the government. If the government can crack the phone, so too can those hackers. So goodbye mobile banking. Goodbye private photos to or from your spouse. Goodbye mobile e-mail access. Goodbye mobile wallet. Welcome back razor flip phone!