It turns out there already is a legal precedent for this. It's called the 4th Amendment:
> 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.
I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence.
He could have refused search without a warrant, intentionally destroying evidence is a different legal matter.
So if you really want to nab someone but you don't care what the charge is, you can threaten them with a 4th Amendment-violating search, which induces them to destroy evidence. Pretty neat trick. IANAL, but I don't think it's controversial to say that people who treat the Bill of Rights like an obstacle to be hacked around probably shouldn't be in positions of power.
End your worthless life
It's his to destroy. Kill yourself you retarded pierce of fascist shit. Die
I assumed all these amendment don't apply at border.
There’s nothing in the constitution that makes that separation, only people deciding the constitution isn’t actually important
“The border” has similarly been extended to cover the majority of the US population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception#/map/0 Yes, according the the US government warrantless border searches apply in West Virginia. (Map from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)
The amendment applies at the border. The agents are acting unlawfully.