Consider the following scenario:
- A person has some texts in which they say to a friend "yeah, I was riding way under the speed in that road to annoy people".
- This is a crime.
- They don't know whether it is a crime. They also don't care to look it up.
- They know it's a moral wrong, and it would make them look really bad if someone found out.
- As a result, they delete those texts, so to not get shamed in their social circle if this information ever leaks.
- Later, in a case where they are accused of such crime, it's found they've deleted these texts.
Can this person be charged with tampering with evidence?
Effectively, is there a plausible deniability argument of "ignorance" to be made for someone destroying evidence for actions they positively know are morally wrong, but don't positively know whether they would be a crime?
Note: This differs from "Would I be risking being guilty of destruction of evidence any time I clear data off my computer?" because this is not an "innocent" action. The accused may not positively know whether it's a crime, but they might have a good suspicion (it is indeed, a morally dubious action).
So another way of phrasing would be: Are you required to check if your morally dubious action is a crime, if you suspect so, before destroying potentially incriminating evidence?
