The language in the statute of what constitutes "destruction" is very broad and clearly covers IMO giving a self-destruct password to someone who you know will try to enter it.

"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

▲

itake 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I know intent is a thing in law.

But I'm curious what the officer specifically requested. If the officer just asked for "the pin code", without explaining what they were trying to do or which pin code, then it seems he did comply: he gave them a pin code that gives them access to the [cleaned] phone.

Then the officer destroyed the property...

▲

whats_a_quasar 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't matter. Providing a PIN that will cause an officer to inadvertently delete data clearly is covered by the statute:

"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure .. takes any action ... for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property ..."

	▲	itake 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My understanding is the duress pin deletes encryption keys, but leaves the property untouched.