Couldn't you also apply this argument to everything? The client turned on full disk encryption 5 years before this arrest because he wanted to make it difficult for anybody (including law enforcement) to read the content of the disk.
I think you could just argue that you didn't want the disturbed and/or wanted to save some battery.
> Couldn't you also apply this argument to everything? The client turned on full disk encryption 5 years before this arrest because he wanted to make it difficult for anybody (including law enforcement) to read the content of the disk.
No. The difference is that the action is taken to obstruct a specific investigation. Generally protecting information without regard to a specific investigation is not obstruction. Same as shredding papers years before they become relevant to an investigation is also not obstruction.
> I think you could just argue that you didn't want the disturbed and/or wanted to save some battery.
Like perjury, proving obstruction may be difficult. That doesn't make it any less illegal.
I think you could just argue that you didn't want the disturbed and/or wanted to save some battery.