It comes down to he said, she said. There have always been people in rough neighborhoods willing to attest to non-existent police brutality. Cell phones with video recording capability simply provide the basis of an authoritative-sounding narrative. She may have recorded a video, or she may be lying. However, the bottom line is that without a video, Internal Affairs has bupkis.
The admitted confiscation of the phones is conclusive proof of corruption and obstruction of justice if the video was deleted.
Under the law, given this scenario, all reasonable conclusion will be made against those who took the phones and erased the video.
If the cops did nothing wrong, they would not have confiscated the phones.
Not when “he” erased the video.
If he was doing nothing wrong, he would have no problem permitting her to record him, as evidence that “he” was within the law.