>>12082602Body cams are also mandatory in most departments. Don't think for a second that evidence like that just gets swept under the rug. It doesn't and there's whole youtube channels dedicated to getting bodycam and police surveillance footage.
In fact it's an inalienable right to that footage under FOIA which even Australia adheres to.
Acts like this don't get committed anymore BECAUSE of the mandates that officers have to follow to ensure the documenting of all interviews.
>https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch03s01s05s01.php>Under the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) 1953 if a person is charged with an indictable offence the police must, if it is reasonably practicable, make an audio visual record of the interview, or if that is not reasonably practicable, make an audio record, however if it is not reasonably practicable to make either then a written record may be made .
Additionally you'd have to have me sign it aussie bobbie and if the information is incorrect I can have it changed.
>Where a written record is made of an interview the person interviewed will be asked to read and sign it. There is no obligation to read or sign a record of interview.
>If you do not agree with information contained in the record of interview, you should ask that it be corrected. Any changes you have requested should then be initialled by you. Caution should always be taken when signing a statement as you are considered to be agreeing with all its contents when you sign.
Which you didn't do. This case would be fraught with incompetence on your part which looks good on me. Destroyed the evidence or the record? Great. Looks worse on you for tampering with evidence.
I'm not a lawyer yet. Still gotta pass the bar.
Come at me pig. I play your game better than you do. 
