Unless there is some penalty to be paid by the officers for breaking the rules, the abuses will continue.
If they start having to pay damages out of their personal assets or getting sent home without pay, they'll get the message.
Until that happens, the status quo will continue.
Right now, it's probably beneficial or at least harmless for an LEO to seize a laptop without a justification that holds up in court. The same goes for their superior allowing or outright instructing them to do so. And so forth all the way up the chain.
There is no direct impact on the LEO who does it from the court decision that it was unjustified. Unless they or their superiors (or someone higher up the chain) are personally held accountable, why should anything change?
It's not a problem with individuals. It's a systemic problem and it needs a systemic solution. There have to be disincentives for someone at some level. Damages paid by the state don't cut it (unless those damages add up to a number high enough for someone to get annoyed by them).
> Most definitely not.
It depends how information about this case gets disseminated. The sooner and wider it spreads, the more unacceptable it will be for rogue agents to overstep the law. After all, citizens can now sue for damages accrued while traveling without the laptop.