There are a couple of questions here. The first is the admissibility of evidence (no, I'm not taking a narrow legalistic view). My personal view is that all evidence should be admitted if it's relevant. Its probative value can be weighed up by the court later but if it's even remotely relevant it should be put in front of the jury.

The second question is how far police should be able to go in terms of searching for evidence. Personally I have no problem with police being able to search his computer. The crime alleged is the most serious. I think the police should be allowed to search anything of his for evidence as soon as he becomes a suspect.

If anyone is familiar with the differences between common law and European civil (ie derived from Roman Law) systems they'll see on which side I fall.

__________________
Do the monkey, feeling funky, I'm just like any distro junkie

(Apologies to the great Hoodoo Gurus - “Miss Freelove 69”)