I’m with you on this one. No 4th violation as there is a legal warrant. However, being required to supply evidence to the prosecution does seem to violate the 5th.
It would seem that the SCOTUS ruling against being forced to supply a password for a phone could reasonably be “stretched” to cover this as well.
Even if a clever lawyer can win the argument that it doesn't violate the letter of the 5th, it still violates the spirit of the 5th. Compelling someone to actively assist in their own prosecution is sufficiently distasteful that it should be out of bounds regardless of legalistic quibbling.