Most countries have similar laws. The US is fairly unique in its strong laws about inadmissible evidence. The argument for those policies is that it stops people being let go on a technicality due to someone signing the wrong form or whatever.
However just because evidence is admissible doesn't mean it has to be taken into consideration. Often the court will decide that certain evidence won't be taken into consideration due to how it was obtained. This is an entirely separate decision than whether or not it should be admissible.
What the police think matters on the scale of hours, days, weeks -- because even if the courts decide otherwise, practically, the remedy is likely to be limited to the return of the equipment, with no penalties for the police. (The pattern of abuse would have to be egregious, or damages very tangible, for courts or legislatures to rule otherwise.)
That sounds like a fishing expedition to me.
I don't know what the law is in Sweden, but in the US there are 4th amendment protections against that sort of thing.