Feds Make First Arrest in BP Spill Case

[Ben]

Interesting that they would pick on a mid-level engineer and threaten him with 20 years in the federal pen for deleting text messages. They perhaps have him on something for destroying documents that had a preservation hold on them, but it seems like it should be more of a $1000 fine sized offense. This guy is out on $100K bail. I see a scapegoat, and it ain't fistful.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/24/feds-make-first-arrest-in-bp-oil-spill-case/?test=latestnews

[Scout26]

I smell fried scapegoat.....

[Ned Hamford]

I forget the name of the law but it caused a kerfluffel when I was in law school... any corporation member with a duty to maintain records can face criminal charges for destruction of those records if they may pertain to a possible criminal charge. Beyond vagueness and self incrimination this really is a scapegoat law. I think the crux is if he was texting numbers, where there some documents he used them from that he destructed? Just how bad is the scapegoating?

[HankB]

Unless the engineer had already been served a subpoena for those text messages, I don't see a crime. (And that's not even considering possible Fifth Amendment considerations.)

But of course, that's because I'm not a prosecutor, judge, investigator, etc.

(And . . . does his deletion of the messages from his phone really eliminate them completely from the electronic record?)

[Ben]

(And . . . does his deletion of the messages from his phone really eliminate them completely from the electronic record?)

I wouldn't be surprised if they found the texts by digging through his cell provider's archive. They keep a lot of that stuff after you hit delete. Which again makes one ponder - if they have the texts, then the "evidence" wasn't destroyed.

[Ned Hamford]

Destruction is destruction, even if there are backups. I'd really like some clear indication this isn't just a guy that cleared out his old texts.  I'd hate to think the feds taken their preservation of evidence law to mean a fellow can't empty out his year old Voicemail ect.

[HankB]

. . . I'd hate to think the feds taken their preservation of evidence law to mean a fellow can't empty out his year old Voicemail ect.

Exactly - if someone who is NOT a lawyer HASN'T been served a subpoena or some other formal notification that the Feds wanted the contents of his cell phone, exactly why is he supposed to preserve it for some hypothetical future fishing expedition for use against him?

And . . . what if the phone were lost or stolen?

[BryanP]

They're not after him.  He's a wedge.  They put enough pressure on him and he'll open up and start talking about things BP would rather stay hidden in exchange for reduced or dropped charges.

[Tallpine]

My corporate email has a size limit, and I have to delete old stuff now and then just to keep it operational.

[Ned Hamford]

My corporate email has a size limit, and I have to delete old stuff now and then just to keep it operational.

You could be a  felon 

[Tallpine]

You could be a  felon 

Might as well make it worthwhile then 

[drewtam]

Where I work...
As part of discovery, the legal notice to hold info is sent the corp.
The corp sends a blanket email directing everyone to stop deleting anything (emails, reports, any electronic communication, or paper copy, etc) related to a certain topic until the hold is lifted.

This process is covered in a pretty standard training exercise here. Our corp makes it mandatory to retake the online lecture every couple years.

Who knows if this guy really did anything wrong. That's what his day in court is for.


I tend to suspect what Bryan says. They are hoping to squeeze out some accusation or secret they couldn't discover through normal channels. Probably just due to ignorance. They are after all lawyers, not engineers. Same problem at the EPA, which writes self contradictory rules and physically impossible test procedures. Then we have to beg them to fix it.