Invoking copyright law is unnecessary. It is far simpler and more narrow to claim that they are engaging in the willful destruction or concealment of evidence w

Invoking copyright law is unnecessary. It is far simpler and more narrow to claim that they are engaging in the willful destruction or concealment of evidence which is a violation of California Penal Code 135 PC [1][2]. How so? 1. There is a video recording. This is specifically mentioned as a protected category. 2. The video recording of officer conduct prior to and during an arrest constitutes material evidence. Recordings of officer conduct have been entered into evidence previously, so this fulfills the requirement that it be evidence. 3. Officer conduct prior to and during an arrest constitutes an inquiry or investigation. This article indicates that actions prior to an arrest constitute pre-arrest investigation [3] and thus fulfills that requirement. 4. Copyrighted music in the video recording reduces the discoverability of the evidence possibly to the degree of non-discoverability when it previously would have been discoverable. This appears to be at least concealment. 5. The accusation that the officers are deliberately playing copyrighted music resulting in the reduced discoverability. This fulfills the willfulness requirement. 1-4 establish that the specific outcomes observed constitute the hiding of evidence. It should be uncontroversial that the evidence has become less discoverable. 5 is then the only material question, which is whether it was done with the intent to cause the concealment of evidence. Based on the above logic, I think it is fairly safe to say that, if they are doing as claimed, then they are violating California Penal Code 135 PC. The only part in the above logic that seems weak is point 3 as I am not sure if it is actually an inquiry or investigation. If point 3 is invalid, then I think the best thing to do would be to amend it to include officer conduct during pre-arrest investigation with respect to the eventually arrested party. This is a far better option than invoking copyright law as it would be narrowly defined to only target the specific willful action that seems unethical which is intentionally playing copyrighted music to prevent the posting of video recordings. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=135 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... [2] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/#:~:text=Penal%20Code%20135%20PC%20is,6%20months%20in%20county%20jail https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/#:~:text.... [3] https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5498-what-are-some-common-steps-of-a-criminal#:~:text=Law%20enforcement%20investigates%20whether%20a,an%20arrest%20should%20be%20made https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5498-what-are-some-common-s....