If the police are going to confiscate, why would they confiscate the whole computers, and not just the drives? Furhter, why not provide the option for the guy being served to get some new drives and copy the data to them before the police confiscate the original?
Usually the answer is that police, generally, have no clue about computers - enough to seize machines but not to safely remove the drives. Clearly that's not the case in this specific incident. But there are other reasons. Firstly, when you remove drives from the machines you have to open it up, photograph them in situ, remove the drives, image and replace them. It's a reasonably time consuming job (and I doubt you'd…
Awesome detailed answer, thanks! My questions come from a basic concern for the suspect, and presumption of innocence before proven guilty. A confiscated computer not only may require extra care in "plain sight" restrictions as outlined in the article, but also extra care in "undue hardship". If I keep all my records on a computer, and that computer is confiscated, I am now without any way of doing basic stuff like paying bills. It would seem that being able to retain a copy of the data is relatively trivial, so such an option should be made available. Given that current practices seem to be "never see your stuff again", is there any reason not to allow it? (Perhaps not as its taken, but shortly thereafter).