As an American, and in a country whose legal system is based on that of England, I'm used to hearing what are apparently incredible positions and determinations, and I've got used to 'waiting for the other shoe to drop', in other words, waiting for that critical piece of information that makes the incredible stuff make sense, usually left out by the media in order to increase emotional response.

So as Guest,Jon says above, why isn't it possible to get that court order and inconvenience the prisoner only to the extent of getting reasonably suspected physical evidence away from him. You can do it to a free person in their own dwelling, why not to a prisoner? How does that infract on their human rights?

Incidentally, I know that France has a different base to its legal system, which is 'guilty until proven innocent'. I have heard from German news stories that there are considerable legal protections to human rights, but I'm curious as to what its historical base is.