[teakettle42]

> Plenty of people in law enforcement would wipe a drive if their family and debts were taken care of, even in face of prison.

This is beyond ridiculous:

(1) Someone in law enforcement that is in a position to meddle with the chain of evidence can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card.

(2) There are a myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place, and ending with who prosecutors decline to prosecute.

(3) Anyone in law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is, especially for someone previously in law-enforcement. Nobody is scrambling to wipe their debts to “take care of their family” while going to prison themselves.

[JumpCrisscross]

> can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card

We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. Then the guy who wiped the drive was caught and charged. So no.

OP suggested the defendant be “automatically found not guilty.” Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.

> myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place

Nothing automatic. Also, this is why we have overlapping jurisdiction.

> law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is

LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons.

[teakettle42]

> We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. So no.

This senator was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist.

> OP suggested automatic not guilty for the defendant. Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.

What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence?

Force the accused to prove the wiped evidence was exculpatory?

[marcosdumay]

> Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.

What fruit do you discard after somebody destroys the data that tells what tree was poisoned?

[typeofhuman]

> LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons

In the US they do. Look at Derek Chauvin. He got assaulted on day one.

[rebuilder]

We don’t know what was on the drive, since it was wiped. We just know the agent says they had it wiped.

Creating a situation where bribing a law enforcement officer to claim to have destroyed evidence gets you out of a criminal charge automatically seems like a pretty problematic idea.

[chiefalchemist]

True. Tho' I believe the arc of the point is...a system based on humans and human nature is subject to a wide range of questionable behaviours.

Just recently there was a judge - was it judges? - found guilty of sending kids to prison based on kickbacks received from the prison. And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Human behavior is both predictable and yet often bizarre.

[rayiner]

> And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg.

But is it just the tip of the iceberg? Or are these things highly publicized when they happen because they are rare?

[hk1337]

With the right amount of incentive, they could hire a lawyer to get them house arrest instead of prison time or a reduced prison time in a minimum security luxury prison.