> how can I say that The exact way I did, with an additional clause afterward appropriately scoping the statement and thereby not stating something overly broa

> how can I say that The exact way I did, with an additional clause afterward appropriately scoping the statement and thereby not stating something overly broad :) The point is that destroying evidence, by itself, is not a crime. Additional elements are required. > irrelevant to some other question That's true. I just saw something not quite true (your police on the porch example) and thought somebody might find the extra nuance interesting. Interestingly, digital vs physical _does_ also matter a little in a few ways (e.g., whether it's even evidence in the first place if it's digital). However, as that's worked its way through the court system over the years, it is practically true that in most cases you're right, at least as it pertains to this charge AFAICT; digital evidence has similar properties to physical evidence in the eyes of the courts.