theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone

consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 3 months ago* (14 children)

I suspect you are attacking the article’s lack of awareness and precision

Uhhhh nope, I was attacking the article's notion that few people know that destruction of evidence is illegal, as I said.

There was no evidence to begin with and no evidence to delete

How could you possibly know that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    It was a targeted harassment search into a political nuisance, not an actual warranted investigation. There was no charge. They let him walk away. Can't have evidence if there was no crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    It was a targeted harassment search into a political nuisance, not an actual warranted investigation

    There is no difference, legally.

    Can’t have evidence if there was no crime

    Can't know if there was a crime if the evidence was destroyed. Imagine if a corporation were being investigated for some sort of crime and they just went and deleted any evidence of it. Does your statement still apply?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    If there's no suspicion of a crime, there's no legal search. So no evidence to gather.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    ok but...there was. Regardless of whether it's legitimate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    You should read the article again. The suspicion was CSAM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Based solely on the fact that he protested the cops hq. That was their excuse after their illegal search attempt. If there was an actual suspicion, they'd have a warrant and be searching his property, not just holding him up at the airport for a few minutes.

    Are you always this easy to fool? We all know this admin isn't going after actual child abusers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    I am not being fooled. I just understand how our justice system works. There is no rational thought process. Only consideration of the law. The prosecutors won't say anything about his protesting. They will only cite suspicion of CSAM.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    If you have mushrooms in your car it is not evidence unless it is discovered during a lawful search as required by due process. Cops cannot just randomly search cars or any other property without cause.

    Hypothetical things are not evidence, regardless of whether they may or may not exist. The phone and any data on it was not evidence because the authorities had no legal or constitutional right or cause to search it.

    Since the phone was wiped, there is no data. This means even the hypothetical was-never-evidence data still is not evidence, because it is literally the absence of evidence. This is as much “destruction of evidence” as the last time you emptied your computers trash folder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If you have mushrooms in your car it is not evidence unless it is discovered during a lawful search

    If a cop has a warrant to search your car for mushrooms and you then burn the car to the ground, that's destruction of evidence.

    If the IRS subpoenas your tax documents and you throw them in a fire, that's destruction of evidence.

    Anything deemed to be pertinent to an investigation is evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments