Post #4322932

Except that, IIRC, it was not he, but an agent, who entered the duress PIN. He would have had to make a statement giving that PIN, and that statement would not be admissible if he weren’t read his rights. If the only evidence of destruction of evidence was a statement he supposedly made, then how will they prove that he made it if it is inadmissable? This is, of course, pretending we live in the world of Faerie, where laws, the constitution, and silly things like “legal precedent” still have meaning.