6 ms·

> Once police open an investigation or once there is a lawsuit served, destroying evidence relevant to that lawsuit is illegal. An investigation doesn't need t

> Once police open an investigation or once there is a lawsuit served, destroying evidence relevant to that lawsuit is illegal. An investigation doesn't need to have begun. All that's required is that you intended to destroy evidence in the event of an investigation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 > Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. "... or in contemplation of..."

metabagel 25d ago
And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... ----- The defendant need not know a matter was pending or within federal jurisdiction. Instead, the “knowingly” element refers only to the obstructive conduct. United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 208 (3rd Cir. 2012). The federal nature of the statute’s prohibition is a jurisdictional requirement, but not a substantive element under Section 1519. United States v. McRae, 702 F.3d 806, 834 (5th Cir. 2012). No nexus requirement. Given that an investigation or matter within federal jurisdiction need not be initiated or even pending at the time of the obstructive conduct, the government need not prove any connection between the alleged obstructive conduct and the federal matter. Moyer, at 209; United States v. Gray, 692 F.3d 514, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2012). Materiality is not an element. As an example, falsification through omission from a log or report can support a conviction, without proof of the materiality of the omission. Powell, at 356; Moyer, at 207-08.
- nashashmi 23d ago
  So in this case: Whoever knowingly ... destroys ... any record ... or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter ... or any case or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, filed under title 11, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Wiping your phone at the border while relevant authority is searching for information under proper administration would constitute a violation. OTOH, he did not wipe the phone himself, nor did he declare that entering a passcode would not wipe the phone but led the administration to wipe the phone. That is like setting up a booby trap that when a file drawer is opened, it would burn up, and the only way to open it would be through a side door.

metabagel 25d ago

And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... ----- The defendant need not know a matter was pending or within federal jurisdiction. Instead, the “knowingly” element refers only to the obstructive conduct. United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 208 (3rd Cir. 2012). The federal nature of the statute’s prohibition is a jurisdictional requirement, but not a substantive element under Section 1519. United States v. McRae, 702 F.3d 806, 834 (5th Cir. 2012). No nexus requirement. Given that an investigation or matter within federal jurisdiction need not be initiated or even pending at the time of the obstructive conduct, the government need not prove any connection between the alleged obstructive conduct and the federal matter. Moyer, at 209; United States v. Gray, 692 F.3d 514, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2012). Materiality is not an element. As an example, falsification through omission from a log or report can support a conviction, without proof of the materiality of the omission. Powell, at 356; Moyer, at 207-08.

nashashmi 23d ago
So in this case: Whoever knowingly ... destroys ... any record ... or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter ... or any case or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, filed under title 11, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Wiping your phone at the border while relevant authority is searching for information under proper administration would constitute a violation. OTOH, he did not wipe the phone himself, nor did he declare that entering a passcode would not wipe the phone but led the administration to wipe the phone. That is like setting up a booby trap that when a file drawer is opened, it would burn up, and the only way to open it would be through a side door.