2 ms·
The implication they are making is that the person _intended_ to destroy potential evidence on the phone. That the person felt there was evidence on it that nee
by parineum 2mo ago
The implication they are making is that the person _intended_ to destroy potential evidence on the phone. That the person felt there was evidence on it that needed to be destroyed to hide a crime.
IMO, even if that's actually illegal, there's zero way to prove it that the fifth amendment doesn't address.
- IAmBroom 2mo agoThe 5th has been distorted by the courts so much, that I wouldn't assume any novel interpretation would stand (and wiping data to avoid self-implicating is novel). For instance, apparently answering questions up until a point at which you don't severely threatens your legal ability to invoke the 5th.