[ImJamal]

Under Georgia law (16-10-94) you do not have to be under arrest.

> A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence

[woodruffw]

This would be under federal law, not Georgia law I believe. But even assuming it was under Georgia law: it hasn’t been entered into public evidence that the person in question knowingly destroyed anything. It’s entirely possible the phone had nothing of value on it; the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified.

[ImJamal]

He was in Atlanta so he can be charged with a Georgia law even if it was the feds are involved. The federal law is quite similar though so it doesn't really matter.

> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the federal law might be more damning since the law clearly doesn't state that there has to actually be anything of value on the device as long as there was "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation". Wiping a phone that they want to look at will impede the investigation.

[hubbahubbahubba]

Perhaps It had a message involving client-attorney communications? Is there any carve out for that case? Is that still intact or has a jack boot been applied to its throat?

[JumpCrisscross]

> the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified

Is this legally true? At least in civil matters, destroying evidence typically causes the worst to be assumed about whatever was destroyed.

[woodruffw]

I thought the standard for obtaining adverse/negative inference in a criminal case was higher than in a civil one, i.e. a judge will typically need more than just evidence that information was destroyed. But IANAL!

[JumpCrisscross]

Maybe you just get charged with destroying or tampering with evidence instead of the original charge? (Help us rayiner!)