[rocqua]

Remote wipe might not play very well. If it was detained in relation with a crime, they might go with 'attempting to destroy evidence'.

Look at it this way. Suppose the seizure of the phone was totally reasonable (because that is how they will think about it). Now, that suspected criminal who apparently had something to hide decided to remotely tamper with evidence after we lawfully detained it? That is subversion of justice!

The above is an argument I'd expect to hear from them.

[orthoxerox]

Isn't it legal to destroy evidence that can be used against you? That's basically exercising your right to not self-incriminate.

[sowbug]

Oh dear no. The U.S. protection against compelled self-incrimination is for testimony, not seizure of papers/effects. Spoliation of evidence is illegal, and in some cases if it's not a crime by itself, it can still even lead to doubt being resolved against you (in other words, if you destroy a key document in a legal proceedings, the court might make a legal judgment that assumes the document's contents were as bad as possible for your case, even if it actually wasn't).