There is nothing wrong with deleting a chat. It is foolish to incriminate oneself by keeping unnecessary chats. Whether they should have been using a chat or not for government business is another matter.
> Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part.
No, it's not "evidence" if it hasn't already been collected. You're presuming there is evidence or that it is official communication. Until it's collected, it's just a chat. It's your constitutional right to delete your personal chat and to not incriminate yourself. In contrast, if you were ordered by a judge to not delete a personal chat, that's a different matter.
> When a party reasonably anticipates litigation, they have a duty to preserve documents and electronically stored information (ESI). This duty is codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e).
I don't like this (it punishes private record keeping) but it's enforced, I believe also by state courts. Big tech companies set impractically short retention policies in general but also put some records on "litigation hold", because they know they can't refuse to comply.
Yes, the legal way is to lose the device in a boating accident, so to speak. The federal government itself has routinely lost hard drives in this manner that were subject to litigation.
More seriously, you're spot-on about setting a short retention policy. It's the primary rational way.
I hope that people can understand when I'm playing devil's advocate when no one else will.
If you’re working in government and in some cases outside of government you have communications retention requirements.
Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part.