In general, courts have held that Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination pertain to testimonial evidence, not broadly to any possible evidence that might be incriminating.
The Fifth Amendment does not extend to physical evidence or other non-testimonial evidence, even if such evidence is potentially incriminating. For example, courts have held that things like blood samples, fingerprints, handwriting samples, and even video or audio recordings do not fall under the protection of the Fifth Amendment because they are not considered testimonial in nature.
The report notes that it is the police chief, not a lawyer representing him, who is making the preposterous argument that the Fifth Amendment justifies his conduct. Any lawyer who tried to make that argument would be made a laughing stock.
Indeed, I would think that this internal affairs report, where the chief is essentially admitting that he knew he'd done something wrong and was trying to prevent incriminating evidence from being recorded, would be pretty damning in front of a jury, because it establishes that he was well aware of the recklessness of his conduct.
The Fifth Amendment does not extend to physical evidence or other non-testimonial evidence, even if such evidence is potentially incriminating. For example, courts have held that things like blood samples, fingerprints, handwriting samples, and even video or audio recordings do not fall under the protection of the Fifth Amendment because they are not considered testimonial in nature.
The report notes that it is the police chief, not a lawyer representing him, who is making the preposterous argument that the Fifth Amendment justifies his conduct. Any lawyer who tried to make that argument would be made a laughing stock.
Indeed, I would think that this internal affairs report, where the chief is essentially admitting that he knew he'd done something wrong and was trying to prevent incriminating evidence from being recorded, would be pretty damning in front of a jury, because it establishes that he was well aware of the recklessness of his conduct.