> that would probably lead to adverse inference against the criminal, not against the officer, because it's the criminal who made it so that there was no eviden

> that would probably lead to adverse inference against the criminal, not against the officer, because it's the criminal who made it so that there was no evidence. That's how things should work, but wouldn't the idea in question mean that, just as with other zero-tolerance rules, common sense like that wouldn't be allowed anymore?