5 ms·

> When a house is raided and someone flushes a toilet, can courts assume they flushed drugs, or does that have to be proven? Game it out at the systems level.

> When a house is raided and someone flushes a toilet, can courts assume they flushed drugs, or does that have to be proven? Game it out at the systems level. If the prosecution had to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that what was destroyed would have been evidence, then destruction of evidence would be functionally permissible whenever done competently. > ...either way this definitely is not the "sky is falling", "we're almost a police state" case that folks here are making it out to be. It's a very narrow and novel line. Agreed. And activists should generally work with lawyers in order to be familiar with areas of the law they are likely to encounter in the course of their activism. Especially activists who travel internationally.

fc417fc802 28d ago
> then destruction of evidence would be functionally permissible whenever done competently. Well yes, but ... is that not the case? Game out the opposite. If the prosection doesn't have to demonstrate that something was valid evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that's rife for all sorts of abuse. In general I don't believe I can catch a (legitimate) felony for locking myself in the bathroom and flushing the toilet during a police raid.
- sfRattan 28d ago
  > In general I don't believe I can catch a (legitimate) felony for locking myself in the bathroom and flushing the toilet during a police raid. Most juristictions have a duty to preserve or not to spoil evidence once you are clearly detained or a search is clearly imminent (i.e. the police are knocking on your door), or when litigation can be reasonably anticipated. Behavior like locking the door and then burning/shredding papers, wiping a phone, or even flushing a toilet can absolutely be considered destruction-of/tampering-with evidence past that point, even (and especially) if the evidence is impossible to recover.
  - fc417fc802 28d ago
    I feel like you aren't responding to what I wrote there. My point was that there's presumably no clear evidence that I was destroying evidence in that example even if I was. The example was in regards to the point made in the preceding paragraph.
    - sfRattan 28d ago
      > If the prosection doesn't have to demonstrate that something was valid evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that's rife for all sorts of abuse. Assuming that is the preceding paragraph you reference, then there is nothing to respond to because the law is clear. As zugi mentions, obstruction of a federal investigation by tampering with evidence (i.e. potentially anything in the scope of a particular search of which you are aware) in just about any sort of way is illegal under 18 USC § 1519 (and again, most states have similar laws with regard to state officials/departments and searches). This subthread, the general thread, the linked article, and the original event it covers are all within the context of someone aware they are detained or under investigation. In that context, the prosecution doesn't need to demonstrate that what was destroyed is evidence. Just that the suspect obstructed the search by destroying, altering, or tampering with something in the search's lawful scope. This state of affairs isn't any more or less rife for abuse than the general process for obtaining a warrant or the standards for an officer assessing probably cause.
      - fc417fc802 28d ago
        Right fair point "evidence" versus "lawful scope". Precision and accuracy of terminology aside, surely you can see the core point I was making there that unless all details (the act of destruction, scope, intent, etc) are demonstrated beyond doubt there's huge potential for abuse.
        sfRattan 28d ago
        The details you mention are all hammered out to death and back as a regular part of the legal process, before and during a trial, and by both prosecution and defense. One can only imagine a huge potential for abuse by suspending any and all familiarity with that legal process.
- inigyou 27d ago
  You can't, but you can if you flushed the cocaine. You should also be worried they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you flushed cocaine, even if you only flushed your urine.
zugi 28d ago
So it turns out destroying a record to obstruct an investigation is also a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 1519. For that they wouldn't need to prove that it was "evidence" or even that it was relevant. So as much as I sympathize with the guy a d wabt to cheer him on, he's probably screwed.

fc417fc802 28d ago

> then destruction of evidence would be functionally permissible whenever done competently. Well yes, but ... is that not the case? Game out the opposite. If the prosection doesn't have to demonstrate that something was valid evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that's rife for all sorts of abuse. In general I don't believe I can catch a (legitimate) felony for locking myself in the bathroom and flushing the toilet during a police raid.

sfRattan 28d ago
> In general I don't believe I can catch a (legitimate) felony for locking myself in the bathroom and flushing the toilet during a police raid. Most juristictions have a duty to preserve or not to spoil evidence once you are clearly detained or a search is clearly imminent (i.e. the police are knocking on your door), or when litigation can be reasonably anticipated. Behavior like locking the door and then burning/shredding papers, wiping a phone, or even flushing a toilet can absolutely be considered destruction-of/tampering-with evidence past that point, even (and especially) if the evidence is impossible to recover.
- fc417fc802 28d ago
  I feel like you aren't responding to what I wrote there. My point was that there's presumably no clear evidence that I was destroying evidence in that example even if I was. The example was in regards to the point made in the preceding paragraph.
  - sfRattan 28d ago
    > If the prosection doesn't have to demonstrate that something was valid evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that's rife for all sorts of abuse. Assuming that is the preceding paragraph you reference, then there is nothing to respond to because the law is clear. As zugi mentions, obstruction of a federal investigation by tampering with evidence (i.e. potentially anything in the scope of a particular search of which you are aware) in just about any sort of way is illegal under 18 USC § 1519 (and again, most states have similar laws with regard to state officials/departments and searches). This subthread, the general thread, the linked article, and the original event it covers are all within the context of someone aware they are detained or under investigation. In that context, the prosecution doesn't need to demonstrate that what was destroyed is evidence. Just that the suspect obstructed the search by destroying, altering, or tampering with something in the search's lawful scope. This state of affairs isn't any more or less rife for abuse than the general process for obtaining a warrant or the standards for an officer assessing probably cause.
    - fc417fc802 28d ago
      Right fair point "evidence" versus "lawful scope". Precision and accuracy of terminology aside, surely you can see the core point I was making there that unless all details (the act of destruction, scope, intent, etc) are demonstrated beyond doubt there's huge potential for abuse.
      - sfRattan 28d ago
        The details you mention are all hammered out to death and back as a regular part of the legal process, before and during a trial, and by both prosecution and defense. One can only imagine a huge potential for abuse by suspending any and all familiarity with that legal process.
inigyou 27d ago
You can't, but you can if you flushed the cocaine. You should also be worried they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you flushed cocaine, even if you only flushed your urine.

zugi 28d ago

So it turns out destroying a record to obstruct an investigation is also a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 1519. For that they wouldn't need to prove that it was "evidence" or even that it was relevant. So as much as I sympathize with the guy a d wabt to cheer him on, he's probably screwed.