Your linked source only applies to civil matters (think lawsuits for a slip and fall). It even says:
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37
That basically arises out of the Fifth Amendment, which reads:
No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
In the criminal conrext, the Fourth Amendment rules, which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
All that “probable cause”, “stop and frisk”, and “reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing” stuff arises from the “unreasonable searches and seizures” bit.
I think you might be thinking of spoilation–https://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/discovery/spoliation-of-evidence/ --which is destroying evidence you think might be subpoened. I don’t think it would apply in this scenario.
Your linked source only applies to civil matters (think lawsuits for a slip and fall). It even says:
That basically arises out of the Fifth Amendment, which reads:
In the criminal conrext, the Fourth Amendment rules, which reads:
All that “probable cause”, “stop and frisk”, and “reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing” stuff arises from the “unreasonable searches and seizures” bit.
Yes.
This was a custodial search by a police force, so civil procedure doesn’t apply.
Correct.