[OneWingedShark]

The claim is that the warrant was objectively reasonable -- that's irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and the Art 1, Sec 11 of the IN Constitution which is a word-for-word copy of the Fourth (the only discrepancy being the casing of of two words 'oath' and 'warrant') which direct that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Did the warrant particularly describe the computer[s] that were seized? Probably not.

[Pearls Before Swine]

The article does not state that the subject of the warrant was objectively reasonable, which would be bad enough for the reasons you point out. It says

“that the force used to execute the search warrant, was “objectively reasonable” “

...which I find far more absurd. There’s no excuse for that level of force and the unannounced invasion absent some serious verified threat.