In contrast, full transparency of body cam footage could and would compromise ongoing investigations and identities of people in witness protection and so on. So full transparency in private/closed court or redacted versions showing only 'relevant' information in public/open court. Maybe full transparency after the information in the video becomes irrelevant, but micromanaging a hude amount of body cam footage would prove to be quite difficult.

>You would have to prove a) that it was evidence of a crime, and b) the police had reason to believe or know it was such.

Missing audio and a big "redacted" sticker is a pretty damning evidence that "Something" was removed. IF there was nothing to hide, why did they remove it?

That’s logic, not Law.

Please don't post like this here.

That doesn’t sound right. My neighbor is accused of a crime, and upon hearing that, I destroy all the evidence that would exonerate them. That doesn’t count as obstruction of justice / destruction of evidence?

Your neighbour is suspected of brutally murdering their parents in his backyard. One Sunday afternoon, you maw their lawn along with yours because they're really old and it really isn't that much work once you're at it anyway.

In the process, you destroy the evidence exonerating them, i. e. footprints of shoes much smaller than theirs.

Obstruction of justice? Nope.

Now imagine the same thing happened. Except that this time, you include their lawn not just because you always do, but to get them thrown in jail. You're really tired of doing all these chores for them, and it's time for new neighbours.

Obstruction of justice? Yep.

Intend matters.

It doesn't have to be evidence of a crime. It can be evidence of policy violations.