Reading section 20 in the article, it basically says that the power to search computers is an extension subject to authority gained through sections 8 & 18 of the act. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/20)
Section 8 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/8) is not a problem as it specifies the lawful basis and process for getting a warrant.
Section 18 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/18) says that if you have been arrested for an indictable offense then the police can enter your property and seize property likely to be directly related to the case without a warrant.
But an indictable offense is murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and other serious crimes according to the courts definition of the term at the third bullet point on this list:-
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/magistrates-court/
So by the courts claim that 90% of cases are dealt with at the magistrates court, the power to search electronic equipment without a warrant accounts for under 10% of cases. If searches are being made in other cases, then doing so is already unlawful. There is no need for further laws on this; they already exist.
Surely you just bring a private prosecution against the cheif constable in question for the common law offense of misconduct in public office?
-The defendant must be a public officer
-The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
-The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers
All three are present, so this would appear to be a rather open and shut case especially if the officer in question is basically saying "yeah, I know it's illegal to do this but getting a warrant is too much work".
Biting the hand that feeds IT
