> He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search

Evidence with regard to which investigation?

It seems like the best course of action would be to argue he did not destroy evidence, just made it unavailable at the location to force the requirement for a search warrant. It would probably be a hard sell, but I can't think of a better argument (not a lawyer).

> Moreover he would have been in the clear if he just kept his mouth shut.

Although then you get a possible delay of undefined duration, additional questioning and seizure of your device.

Problem is, he didn't destroy shit. "He" (by which I mean, technically the agents) deleted a header that's used to encrypt data but can restored from a backup.

Evidence of what? Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. The normal threshold to accuse is a "reasonable, articulable suspicion." This does not meet that criteria.

"Evidence" of what, exactly? What specific crime did they expect to find evidence of on his phone?

[flagged]