Again. Destruction of evidence is a crime. Even if it’s not a choice for the user, the usage of such a feature would be a crime. And also again: the law and the courts don’t care about technicalities, no matter your opinion on that matter.

People here are choosing to make things harder for themselves by coming up with ideas to skirt the law, but it doesn’t work and will only make the police go harder on you. The law (and precedent) is not on your side in this battle.

Are you sure? This is a nuanced issue. Ehat counts as "usage". Intentionally destroying evidence is a crime, but broadly automatically destroying data before you have any knowledge of an allegation is not. (Otherwise, thinks lke GDPR would be illegal in the US)

We’re talking about depositions, so the knowledge of an investigation followed by destruction of the data (whether intention or not) by handing the device over would be a crime. I can’t hand my phone over to the police and remote wipe it with iCloud, for example.

Destruction when handing to a mugger is still ok.

Well it wouldn't be the user destroying data.

Judge: "Hand over that phone right now"

You: "Sure, I can hand it over, but all data will then get wiped by the device automatically due to Google/Apple/Samsung's anti-theft design and I don't have a choice"

After that it's upto the Judge whether to proceed with the handover or not. It will be the judge who destroyed the data if so.

As I said before: technicalities don’t work. You’re not getting out of this. If you told the judge that, he’d change his order to hand over the data in a different way. Have fun sitting down with the police while they copy all of the data off by hand while you show them each item.

Judges don't appreciate clever tricks of any kind, and neither does the law. Anything you think of that sounds like a clever trick is not something you should actually try.

No, it wouldn't even be my trick. It would be a feature of the design of the phone and I, the user, would not even have a choice in that implementation.

The primary motive of that design would be against thieves, but it would incidentally happen to work on judges as well. The owners of the phones would have no choice.

It doesn’t matter. Judges don’t care and they have very broad authority to get what they want. You’re not getting off on a technicality. It’s that simple.

Well I wouldn't have a choice, so it wouldn't matter. They can get angry at the phone manufacturer instead of me.

@cutemonster

Yes, they could do that, and of course, in that case, my eyes would be on it and they would only be able to ask for things pertinent to the case, which likely means all corporate accounts, not dig through personal accounts.

Them being unable to take the actual device means that they'd have to play by the rules.

Can't they tell you to click buttons and type on the phone on their behalf, until they've gotten what they want, whilst an assistant looks across your shoulder telling you what to do/click next?

Let me know how that goes for you if you ever have the unfortunate opportunity to try it.