"With respect to the Fifth Amendment, Reffitt's entering his password in to the Subject Device does not violate his privilege against self-incrimination, because his act of production would not be testimonial, since the only potentially testimonial component implicit in his act of producing the unlocked/unencrypted device is a foregone conclusion."
In somewhat more detail, this is permissible because the act of unlocking his laptop does nothing that can be seen as incriminating himself:
* The laptop is already known to exist, and known to be owned by the user.
* What is being sought on the laptop [a video the defendant recorded at the event] is already known and admitted to exist, and it is known that the files in question are (at least were at one point in the past) on the laptop.
* The video in question was prepared prior to the search warrant and investigation, so it's not a Fifth Amendment violation to produce it unless the production itself is potentially incriminating (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell). But as mentioned above, the ability to produce the information isn't protected anymore, since there's no question that the individual could produce it.
This feels like it ought to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, but it seems that it's pretty long-standing precedent that there's really nothing here that would violate the Fifth Amendment. Were this password-protected, or even a locked box in a safe, there would similarly be no Fifth Amendment violation, and the biometric aspect of the request doesn't (nor should it) change the analysis meaningfully.