If those were the only two raids in 2014, we are probably looking at an area where the legal restraints haven’t been sufficiently defined.

But this is politics: If you act first and let the legal questions wait, you will violate innocents, while if you ask questions first, you will let guilty people go free. Politicians define instructions on how agressive the implementation should be.

By “assumption of innocence” you should be protected against these kinds of things. But politically the world has turned towards “safety first”, then “assumption of innocence”.

Or in strategy: Since “think of the children”, “tough on crime” and “fight terrorism” are so strong paroles, the politicians would rather take responsibility for too aggressive enforcement than giving political opponents ammunition for using them!

In the end this question is also a symptom of mainstream media being biased – understandably so – towards bigger headlines and less towards a more balanced coverage. An example is the coverage of a crime: It starts with someone getting arrested, which is heavily covered in the press, then a long time of only huge court cases making media stories as they happen and ultimately the ruling is covered generally. All mitigating factors are removed and since many do not differ betweeen being arrested and being sentenced, most cases will look like either an evil getting punished or an evil escaping justice. Mainstream journalism today are horrible at covering crime reporting in a balanced way or with deep and diverse enough angles. Same generally goes for geopolitical coverage where it often gets into “us versus them” instead of more analysis of what is dividing them and what the sides are generally acting against/for.