I expect this that the case is going to get dismissed on technical grounds without addressing the core issue. If you are not directly charged with the specific offense, what is the limit of "destroying evidence" as its own crime?

  - If I rob a bank and then burn all of my planning materials after the crime - did I destroy evidence?
  - If I rob a bank, the police question me but do not charge me with anything. I then burn all of the planning materials - did I destroy evidence?
  - If I rob a bank, the police have a warrant to search my house in relation to an unrelated insurance scam across the street. Then I burn all of my bank heist materials - did I destroy evidence?

When the police are "just having a chat" and you later destroy all of your papers which might have been linked to a crime - isn't that fully within my rights to destroy my property? When do I have an explicit requirement to maintain my effects so the state can use it against me?

If I have a dash-cam in my car and it records me speeding - am I not allowed to overwrite the old footage? What if that dash-cam footage is the only thing that proves a crime were committed? Now I am forced to let my possessions testify against me.

▲ Tadpole9181 a day ago | parent [-]

Let's be clear, there is no underlying crime at all as far as we are aware. So the appropriate hypothetical is:

You ate a grilled cheese in your home and wipe the crumbs into the bin. The police arrest you for destruction of evidence for robbing a bank that never even got robbed. Then they hit you with qualified immunity and high five each other.

It's utterly ridiculous that police seem to just have infinite powers now. All they have to do is say "I suspect" and they have boundless ability to arrest anyone (potentially losing their job or missing key life events), declare any object as evidence (which the department can conveniently keep for themselves even if you're found innocent), or use mass surveillance systems (to stalk women).

EDIT: Finding another article, it's even worse. He didn't do it at all - he was interrogated, was never allowed his lawyer, never read rights, with no warrant. And after having the device seized an agent triggered the device wipe themselves by trying to get in under this duress.

So in this case, the the cop eats the grilled cheese and throws out the crumbs and then arrests you for destruction of evidence.

	▲	cindyllm a day ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]