It seems to me that the correct remedy in this case would be to have a representative of the court preserve specific data requested by the offender, as long as it isn't criminal or harmful, at the offender's expense.
I don't think wiping an offender's phone is justified in most cases even if it might hinder them in potential subsequent crimes, but it does seem justified in this case where the phone contains significant material harmful to the victim of a serious crime.
I would say they should have only deleted the data that was found to be illegal, but if that data was all over the place... I find it hard to sympathize.
Seizing and selling or destroying property used in the commission of a crime is common. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me if the value of the property is in proportion to the severity of the crime, and the owner of the property has been convicted of the crime (i.e. it's not civil asset forfeiture).
It is common, and in this case the police were, according to the article, specifically not given permission to do so or did not seek permission to do so.
As someone who's been a victim in a situation like this, I'm totally on the side of the cops. We need to draw lines somewhere. There's no good argument for protecting ownership of the kind of subject matter that was deleted here.
Edit: I would encourage anyone who's downvoting me to worry less about their own digital rights and spend some time thinking about what it would be like to have explicit pictures of yourself in the hands of someone who hurt you.
> [information] relevant to a possible civil lawsuit against the West Bend Police Department.”
No, the cops should not get to wipe data that could be used in court against them. Is this.... not obvious?
I don't think wiping an offender's phone is justified in most cases even if it might hinder them in potential subsequent crimes, but it does seem justified in this case where the phone contains significant material harmful to the victim of a serious crime.
After Reading the Article: "Well, given the circumstances, deserved."
Maybe don't engage/consume/manufacture CSAM and it won't be a problem.
Usually not, but sometimes under circumstances enumerated by law. Like this case.
Edit: I would encourage anyone who's downvoting me to worry less about their own digital rights and spend some time thinking about what it would be like to have explicit pictures of yourself in the hands of someone who hurt you.