Destruction of property? (I’m guessing - I don’t know.)
Without a complaint the most that could be is littering. The phone could have been his property or he could have permission to destroy it if it’s not.
There’s video of it happening, so I don’t think that’s the issue.
How does that change things? Does the video include a sworn statement by the phone’s owner that Kelce didn’t have his permission to take the phone and smash it?
There’s an old saying in coptalk. No victim no crime. It sounds flippant but it’s true more often than not.