This case is set to make a legal precedent, so it is worth noting the implications. If Ramona is protected and is not required to reveal the password that decrypts the data on her laptop, passwords can be said to be contents of one’s mind. Thus, she would be protected under the fifth amendment. From the EFF:
[T]he Supreme Court has explained that a witness might be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents,” but not “compelled to reveal the combination to a wall safe.” …Forcing an individual to supply a password necessary to decrypt data is more like revealing the combination to a wall safe than to surrender a key: the witness is being compelled to disclose information that exists in her mind, not to hand over a physical item.
The government has not asked her for the password, but simply for her to “unlock” what is on her computer. The defense believes this is the same thing: the contents on a computer that are locked are from the mind of the individual. The EFF also believes that the government does not have any specific evidence they are sure to find. So, this case also seems to be protected under the fourth amendment (unreasonable search & seizure).