3 ms·

Destroying evidence is indeed a crime, and a severe one at that - but if they just withdrew it, unpublished it without deleting it, then it's a grey area at bes

Destroying evidence is indeed a crime, and a severe one at that - but if they just withdrew it, unpublished it without deleting it, then it's a grey area at best. It's unlikely that anyone will face anything for this - just as unlikely that the officer who shot him will face any charges.

Cenk 10y ago
Isn’t even accessing her phone without a search warrant illegal? Surely it had nothing to do with the crime being committed (obviously, since the only crime that took place is the murder of an innocent man by the police)
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  You'd think, but I'd wager the offence that they do write up is driving with a broken tail light, which is apparently a capital offence. It'd be nice to imagine that they'd look into the illegal search they carried out, but rather, they'll likely fixate on how he was actually definitely guilty of a crime and this was absolutely justified. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-p-sherouse/the-problem-with-broken-taillights_b_7030592.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-p-sherouse/the-problem-wi...
- coldpie 10y ago
  Police in the US are above the law. As evidenced by recent unjustified police killings, they are allowed to execute people in the street with no repercussions. So I don't think accessing a phone without a warrant and deleting evidence is even going to register.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Anyone is isn't poor or works toward a corporate interest is above the law. The for profit prisons don't want to see community policing. That will cut into their bottom line.
caf 10y ago
I don't know about "destroying evidence" but accessing Facebook under someone else's account without their permission sounds like a contravention of the CFAA.
djaychela 10y ago
IANAL (obviously!) but I would think that this would rest on whether they thought they were permanently deleting the video, and therefore thought they were destroying the evidence. I'd say yes, but proving it? Difficult, I'd think.

Cenk 10y ago

Isn’t even accessing her phone without a search warrant illegal? Surely it had nothing to do with the crime being committed (obviously, since the only crime that took place is the murder of an innocent man by the police)

madaxe_again 10y ago
You'd think, but I'd wager the offence that they do write up is driving with a broken tail light, which is apparently a capital offence. It'd be nice to imagine that they'd look into the illegal search they carried out, but rather, they'll likely fixate on how he was actually definitely guilty of a crime and this was absolutely justified. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-p-sherouse/the-problem-with-broken-taillights_b_7030592.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-p-sherouse/the-problem-wi...
coldpie 10y ago
Police in the US are above the law. As evidenced by recent unjustified police killings, they are allowed to execute people in the street with no repercussions. So I don't think accessing a phone without a warrant and deleting evidence is even going to register.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Anyone is isn't poor or works toward a corporate interest is above the law. The for profit prisons don't want to see community policing. That will cut into their bottom line.

caf 10y ago

I don't know about "destroying evidence" but accessing Facebook under someone else's account without their permission sounds like a contravention of the CFAA.

djaychela 10y ago

IANAL (obviously!) but I would think that this would rest on whether they thought they were permanently deleting the video, and therefore thought they were destroying the evidence. I'd say yes, but proving it? Difficult, I'd think.