Tampering With Evidence Prosecutions
What Is Tampering With Evidence?
Tampering with evidence generally refers to knowingly altering, destroying, concealing, falsifying, or fabricating physical or documentary evidence with intent to impair its integrity or availability in an official proceeding or investigation.
This crime is intended to obstruct justice by preventing or misleading investigations or court proceedings.
Legal Framework
Federal and state laws criminalize evidence tampering. Key statutes include:
18 U.S.C. § 1512 — Covers tampering with witnesses, victims, or informants and evidence tampering in federal cases.
18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Makes it a crime to knowingly alter or destroy documents or records to obstruct an investigation.
State statutes vary but generally align with these principles.
Elements usually required:
Knowledge of an official proceeding or investigation.
Intent to alter, destroy, conceal, or falsify evidence.
The act of tampering itself (e.g., destruction, fabrication).
Why Is It Important?
Tampering undermines the justice system by preventing accurate fact-finding and fair trials. Courts treat this offense seriously, often imposing significant penalties.
Key Case Law Examples
1. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995)
Facts: Aguilar was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 for threatening a witness and attempting to influence or prevent their testimony in a federal investigation.
Legal Issue: The Supreme Court addressed the scope of “official proceeding” and the conduct constituting obstruction.
Outcome: The Court upheld the conviction but narrowed the statute’s interpretation.
Significance: Clarified that tampering requires a connection to a formal proceeding and established limits on what constitutes evidence tampering or witness intimidation.
2. United States v. Napier, 436 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2006)
Facts: Napier was convicted for burning a videotape that was potential evidence in a criminal investigation.
Legal Issue: Whether the destruction was intentional and done to impede a federal proceeding.
Outcome: Conviction upheld; the court ruled that destruction with knowledge of an impending investigation satisfied the statute.
Significance: Affirmed that physical destruction of evidence, even if indirect, constitutes tampering.
3. People v. Rosario, 123 A.D.3d 1393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Facts: Defendant altered accident reports to avoid liability in a personal injury case.
Charges: Tampering with physical evidence under New York Penal Law § 215.40.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced; appellate court affirmed conviction.
Significance: Demonstrated that falsifying official documents to mislead investigations constitutes evidence tampering.
4. State v. Foster, 764 A.2d 125 (N.J. 2001)
Facts: Foster, a police officer, deliberately withheld and altered witness statements to protect a colleague.
Legal Issue: Whether his actions amounted to tampering with evidence.
Outcome: Convicted under New Jersey’s tampering statute.
Significance: Important case showing that law enforcement officials can be held liable for tampering.
5. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)
Facts: Hubbell was investigated for fraud and was later charged with contempt for allegedly destroying subpoenaed documents.
Legal Issue: Whether his acts constituted obstruction and evidence tampering.
Outcome: Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hubbell on grounds related to the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Significance: Highlighted constitutional limits on prosecuting evidence tampering in certain contexts.
6. People v. Moreno, 35 Cal.4th 86 (2005)
Facts: Moreno was convicted for removing and destroying blood evidence relevant to a DUI investigation.
Outcome: Conviction affirmed; courts ruled tampering occurs when evidence is destroyed with intent to affect investigation.
Significance: Reinforced that physical destruction of crucial evidence is a serious crime.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Year | Facts & Charges | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Aguilar | 1995 | Threatening witness to impede testimony | Conviction upheld | Defined scope of “official proceeding” |
| United States v. Napier | 2006 | Destroyed videotape linked to investigation | Conviction upheld | Physical destruction = tampering |
| People v. Rosario | 2014 | Altered accident reports | Convicted | Falsifying official documents = tampering |
| State v. Foster | 2001 | Officer altered witness statements | Convicted | Police liable for evidence tampering |
| United States v. Hubbell | 2000 | Destroyed subpoenaed documents | Ruled constitutional | Constitutional limits on prosecuting tampering |
| People v. Moreno | 2005 | Destroyed blood evidence (DUI case) | Convicted | Physical evidence destruction is punishable |
Conclusion
Tampering with evidence prosecutions focus on maintaining the integrity of investigations and judicial proceedings. Courts have made clear that:
Destroying, altering, or falsifying evidence with intent to obstruct justice is a crime.
Law enforcement officers are not immune from prosecution.
Constitutional protections may limit prosecutions but do not generally shield clear acts of tampering.
RELATED Blog
0 comments