Except that there is evidence to show that the specific equipment was used to commit a crime. You'd be hard-pressed to provide a legal standard that prevented

Except that there is evidence to show that the specific equipment was used to commit a crime. You'd be hard-pressed to provide a legal standard that prevented police from obtaining permission from a court to seize that evidence as part of their investigation, even if the owner isn't implicated. It's not too dissimilar from a shop owner being forced to give up security camera footage -- the owner is not being targeted in the investigation, and there's plenty of unrelated footage, but there is a high likelihood of relevant evidence existing.