When his meth lab burns down, a rising drug lord must erase evidence from a laptop before the DEA finds it.

Or maybe.....'A rising drug lord must steal and destroy a tightly guarded laptop from a police evidence room before the DEA finds it to incriminate him.' 25 wrds.

"A High School chemistry teacher turned drug lord must erase a laptop containing evidence against him before the DEA finds it. Only problem is, it's under 24 hour guard locked somewhere within a police evidence room." It's more than one sentence, but I think it's got all the "hooks."

Well, that makes more sense, but it should read: '....a rising drug lord must destroy evidence on a laptop that is stored in the police evidence room.' Sure, you know what the film is about now.

Nope. The laptop is fine but the logline is confusing because the DEA already have the laptop and "before the DEA finds it" relates to the evidence stored on it.

Perhaps: "... a rising drug lord must destroy evidence a laptop that is stored in the police evidence room."

Well Karel, I think you are ignoring your own rule here. Isn't the laptop in the lab and doesn't it burn down with everything? And if not, then who has the laptop? Was it stolen before the fire or at the time of the fire? Was the fire started by a nemesis character who was maybe a DEA agent? It could be a good action thriller, but I don't see the story yet.