Re: " the owner of the phone has given them permission"
@PhilipN - You have made two attempts to deny that the law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the San Bernadino shootings have "probable cause" to examine the phone found in the suspect's vehicle. Not his personal phone, a phone owned, and issued to him, by his employer, the San Bernardino County Health Dept.
You say - "FBI do not know what is on the phone. Maybe nothing. They get a judge to make an order to open it up anyway.
In legal terms it is called a fishing expedition and a definite no-no."
You are wrong.
First, Brangdon is kind enough to inform you that the legal owner of the phone in question has granted permission to the relevant law enforcement agencies to examine the phone. This granted permission completely removes any legal requirement to establish 'probable cause'. The user of the phone (whether alive or not), has no legal standing in this matter. He doesn't own the phone.
Here, just for you, is an example of this process.
Case one: the cops come to my dwelling and wish to search it. I refuse permission. In order to perform their search, they must go in front of a judge and request a search warrant. Before the judge will issue the warrant, the cops must show that they have probable cause to conduct the search.
Cops show probable cause = warrant issued = search conducted.
No probable cause = no warrant issued = no search.
Case two: the cops come to my dwelling and wish to search it. I grant permission. The search is performed, no warrant is needed, and thus, no probable cause is needed.
Shortly after Brangdon makes his entirely correct observation, along comes our old friend AC to point out, and rightly so, that the phone was found in the possession of a person who is the number one suspect in a case of mass murder.This fact, alone, will satisfy the probable cause requirement in any court in the United States, but mere facts are not enough to convince you. An AC then remarks correctly "Case closed".
Instead of an acknowledgement that your original statement had been disproved, you come roaring back with all of the stubbornness and intelligence common to donkeys, whether of the two or four legged variety. There is one small problem. Your grand rebuttal, your closing speech to the jury, the cudgel with which you would smite your foes, is broken.
"If my secretary keeps a private diary in her desk (which I own) in my office premises (which I own) do I have the unrestricted right to read it when she is not there? ........ No!" My emphasis added.
You are wrong again.
Look at that statement closely Philip. Did you miss something? Yes you did. Your statement is not analogous to the situation in San Bernadino. Let's try again.
You should have said:
"If my secretary keeps a private diary (which I own) in her desk (which I own) in my office premises (which I own) do I have the unrestricted right to read it when she is not there?" Again, my emphasis added.
Did you spot the difference? The correct answer is of course, yes you can read the diary, you own it. The second statement is analogous to the situation in San Bernadino.
Still don't believe it?
Do you have a company-owned PC on your company-owned desk at work?
Do you think for an instant that your boss, or his designated representatives, cannot look through your browsing history, or indeed, any file on that company-owned PC?
Does NSFW ring a bell? Why do you think that acronym was created?
TL:DR You have been wrong since you opened your mouth.