theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
For evidence to possibly exist, you need to be charged with a crime first. Evidence exists within context of a charge. No charge - no evidence.
LOL what!? So you’re saying law enforcement has never obtained evidence without first charging someone with a crime!?
E: if you’re downvoting this, you are a moron. You cannot charge someone with a crime without any evidence. The evidence comes first.
I’m saying you cant “destroy evidence” if you haven’t been charged with anything since at that point it isn’t considered evidence.
This is just complete insanity. You live in a fictional universe. That’s not how any of this works.
“Ah yes, that piece of paper you wrote something on a week ago and threw away that we have no idea what was on it? That is actually now evidence, and since you disposed of it you are now being charged with destruction of evidence.”
The way things are going it might actually become that way. And then you’ll see true insanity.
But it wasn’t a week ago. He was actively being investigated for a crime at the time.
You have a right to not incriminate yourself. Being investigated for a crime implies probable cause, which this instance lacks unless I’m misreading the article.
Your right to not incriminate yourself does not apply to destruction of evidence.
Correct, no evidence was destroyed in this instance.
No he wasn’t. He was being harassed because he protested cops previously. They had nothing on him. They still have nothing on him.
There is no legal difference.
Yes there is. One is an illegal abuse of power, which is a island offense for the officer. The other involves a surprising of a crime and a court warrant.