Exactly, but another thought, if they have full access to the machine couldn't they in theory insure that the evidence they want is there. And even if it wasn't actually there, what's to stop the "good guys" from saying it was there anyways, the article points out a lacking knowledge on the part of the judges and lawyers, so how would they know for sure that the evidence hasn't been compromised...It's simple, I don't think that (at this time) there is a way that these individuals will know for SURE that the evidence that they have "found" has actually been found and that it was already there...It's the word of the authorities and we all know that a lot of them are as crooked as a politician. So it becomes the word of a possibly corrupt public officer against the word of the individual, whom he/she has deemed a criminal. I think there need to be more safeguards against the tampering of digital evidence before it becomes more widely used.

Also think about the fact that their whole case can be lost with a simple (by simple I mean calling the right program into execution) whipe.