Mustn’t evidence be clearly relevant to the suspicion of a crime? If we call anything the police might take an interest in “evidence”, then in principle destroying anything could land you in prison. All the cops would have to do is declare they wanted to see the thing you destroyed.
Well in some cases you have the issue of urgency, which is why police do have some certain rights without getting the clearance from a judge or criminal prosecutor. Not sure how it is in the US though.
We don’t know how the story went behind the scenes, so we can’t really say if it was justified or not.
Mustn’t evidence be clearly relevant to the suspicion of a crime? If we call anything the police might take an interest in “evidence”, then in principle destroying anything could land you in prison. All the cops would have to do is declare they wanted to see the thing you destroyed.
Well in some cases you have the issue of urgency, which is why police do have some certain rights without getting the clearance from a judge or criminal prosecutor. Not sure how it is in the US though.
We don’t know how the story went behind the scenes, so we can’t really say if it was justified or not.