[theturtletalks]

Yes this is different than when law enforcement serve a warrant and the defendant wipes his computer before the agents can get a hold of it. In that case the warrant covers what you destroyed as evidence.

Though during traffic stops, if a defendant disposes of his drugs while on the run, that can also carry a charge of destroying evidence even though no warrant was issued.

IANAL

[stemlord]

Hm but the drugs are only evidence because they're illegal? So the phone owner only destroyed evidence if the phone contained something illegal, but innocent until proben guilty?

[kube-system]

No, destroying evidence is a crime even if possession of that evidence is legal.

[amrit3128]

Who decided that it's evidence?

[kube-system]

Evidence is simply a word to describe the artifacts that one wishes to use to support their case. There’s not some gate-kept process to “become evidence”.

[__MatrixMan__]

Law enforcement. That's like, their job.

[bubblethink]

After they get it when they are authorized to get it. You cannot point at random things and call them evidence. For instance, I can take a dump and flush it, despite law enforcement's assertion that my stool is evidence in some imaginary crime.

[kube-system]

It doesn’t have to be something the police have already collected. It could be something that they have yet to collect.

The textbook tampering with evidence example is: drug dealer tries to flush the drugs when the police knock on the door.

[navigate8310]

Without even looking if it's worthy of evidence or not?

[kube-system]

Yes, absolutely. Something can be evidence if the police haven’t even seen it at all.

For example: the police think you are running a fraud scheme. They knock on your door. You shred a bunch of paper. The police wanted to see what was on the paper. You have violated the US law on tampering with evidence.

[jibal]

Destroying evidence is a crime, regardless of any warrant.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519