Even in places where you can’t be compelled to hand over a password, attempting to deceive the cops will get you thrown in prison just as reliably as destroying evidence.
There’s plenty of empirical evidence of cops lying to lock up innocent people.
One truly absurd case was lying to convince a man he killed his father, and extracted a murder confession for a victim who they knew wasn’t dead.
https://people.com/thomas-perez-jr-murder-interrogation-1186...
And the solution is to correctly prosecute and punish them. A cop is sworn, and we should hold them to a higher standard not a lower one. But changing the underlying rules just because some cops are bad isn't necessarily an improvement.
His neighbors yelled something to us out of their window. We went to see what they wanted, but they didn't say anything when we got near.
We went back to the porch and waited for maybe 10-15 minutes, but decided to leave as we felt really weird about those neighbors. As we started walking, a police officer pulled up screaming at us, telling us we were under arrest for throwing rocks at the windows of those neighbors. The police officer took us to the police station, put handcuffs on us, as well as shackled our feet to the floor, where we remained for like 2 hours. He made us write a statement, and then told our parents to come get us.
It was truly the most confusing thing I ever experienced. Angers me a bit today thinking about it.
Fabricating evidence in an interrogation to try to get a confession out of someone versus "I'm not a cop" when infiltrating a drug ring, or lying to hide important information
Lying about evidence specifically is illegal in a lot of countries (not the US)
That only applies to federal agents, at least. You can lie to local cops all you want. Though in both cases I think just keeping your trap shut is the better option.
The legality of that varies.
But in general, lying to a local cop is significantly less likely to get you in trouble. The risks are so much higher with a federal agent that I'd strongly consider just staying silent rather than risk talking myself into a problem. The feds are fond of using it as their charge of choice when nothing else will stick.
I'm not going to explain my full understanding of this piece of wisdom, it would be a wall of text, I want just mention that this behavior is addictive: it is much easier to start justifying your means than to stop it. And over time those justifications become more and more flexible.
I'm ready to agree that there are situations in which ends justify the means, but if you are not aware of downsides in your particular case, and if it doesn't seem controversial to you, you are most likely mistaken and the ends do not justify the means.
"I am in full physical compliance and will not interfere with investigation in any way, but I plead the 5th on answering any questions, and plead the 4th on any personal property", and just sit there silently. Let them break into the phone if they want.
Obviously a good alternative is a dummy device but it carries similar risks, and the best option is to simply not go to authoritarian shitholes like the USA. Thankfully I've been able to avoid/push for US folks visiting us instead, but honestly the alternatives are as bad.
Its a shit situation where most reasonable actions carry real risks, its up to individuals to choose what is acceptable risk to them, but a dummy os you use as a daily driver for inconsequential work is, to me, an ideal midground.
I doubt this person will be found guilty. They will be able to prove he wiped his phone, but it will be hard to prove he destroyed evidence.