In the US, you don’t have to specify what evidence was destroyed, but you DO have to offer a reasonable, articulated suspicion that a crime has occurred, you have to specify what crime has occurred, AND you have to specify the type of evidence you’re looking for.
To use your burning down the house analogy, the police would have to say, “I think you’re selling cocaine, based on the fact that I arrested someone leaving your house with cocaine and they said you sold it to them, and I want to search your house for cocaine,” before they file destruction of evidence charges because you burned down your house.
They can’t say, “I think you’re selling drugs because I think you look like someone who sells drugs, and I want to search your house for anything that might be drug-related,” and that’s basically what happened here.
For the destruction of evidence charges to stick, they first need to present evidence that a specific crime might have occurred, and present evidence suggesting that evidence of that crime exists on the phone, AND specify what kind of evidence might exist. So, if they have text messages from another person, that could be used to prove another half of the conversation is on the phone. If someone testifies to pictures or videos existing on the phone, they can use that. But they can’t just say, “SOME evidence of SOMETHING must have been on there.”
In the US, you don’t have to specify what evidence was destroyed, but you DO have to offer a reasonable, articulated suspicion that a crime has occurred, you have to specify what crime has occurred, AND you have to specify the type of evidence you’re looking for.
To use your burning down the house analogy, the police would have to say, “I think you’re selling cocaine, based on the fact that I arrested someone leaving your house with cocaine and they said you sold it to them, and I want to search your house for cocaine,” before they file destruction of evidence charges because you burned down your house.
They can’t say, “I think you’re selling drugs because I think you look like someone who sells drugs, and I want to search your house for anything that might be drug-related,” and that’s basically what happened here.
For the destruction of evidence charges to stick, they first need to present evidence that a specific crime might have occurred, and present evidence suggesting that evidence of that crime exists on the phone, AND specify what kind of evidence might exist. So, if they have text messages from another person, that could be used to prove another half of the conversation is on the phone. If someone testifies to pictures or videos existing on the phone, they can use that. But they can’t just say, “SOME evidence of SOMETHING must have been on there.”