Suppose I am not guilty of a crime, but I know that there is stuff out there that could make it look like I was guilty of a crime. So I destroy that stuff, so as to stave off suspicion.
Is that destruction a crime?
(It may depend on jurisdiction, of course, but I’d bet there’s a fairly general answer.)
Depends on the DA, but since the evidence is gone, they are going to skeptical of your claim that it wasn’t relevant to the investigation.
IANAL, but you may find interesting the linked .pdf about defense attorneys and their ethical duties to preserve evidence. Page E-3 of the linked document goes into potential criminal sanctions for those who destroy evidence. As the attorney is from Texas, he mentions Texas and Federal law on the subject, specifically, Texas Penal Code section 37.09 and 18 U.S.C. 1519. (The linked article’s footnote incorrectly references section 1503.)
37.09 reads in relevant part as follows:
It’s a 3rd degree felony to do so.
1519 reads:
Evidence spoliation is generally a poor idea. Note that both sections require that one have the specific intent of ‘impairing the investigation’ in order to be found guilty of these offenses. Also, neither statute has language that one must be guilty of the underlying crime or acts that caused the investigation, in order to be found guilty of evidence tampering/altering of records in a federal investigation.
So for example, one day your friend is chopping veggies at your house and cuts himself, getting blood on the blade. The next day your friend is stabbed to death in the next town over. But you are afraid the blood on the blade at your house could make you a suspect or something (just spinning a tale, alter it for plausibility however you like) and so you toss it into the ocean. That would count as concealing or destroying evidence?
I wonder what exactly the “impairing” in “impairing an investigation” means. In normal English, you could say you weren’t “impairing” the investigation but improving it, decreasing the likelihood of false leads… 
Destroying evidence is called spoliation. Intentionally destroying evidence allows a jury (in a civil or criminal setting) to draw an inference that the evidence was unfavorable. It doesn’t matter if it actually was unfavorable, just that it was relevant to existing or foreseeable litigation.
Seems to me that the knife is not actually evidence of a crime, because no crime was committed in relationship too it. I’m not sure if the statute above applies only to evidence that was actual evidence of a crime that actually happened, or if it applies to any “evidence” that might end up being presented in a criminal court as potential evidence.
I.e. could one say that “Well, destroying the knife couldn’t possibly ‘impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding’ because it wasn’t evidence of anything that could be subject to a valid ‘investigation or official proceeding’. It was simply a stupid knife.”?
I’m rather sure you don’t get to be the judge at your own trial in the US. So, trying to claim no impairment (in the legal sense) without having the qualifications to do so may get you into some trouble.
Even if it doesn’t seem pertinent, it’s still evidence. Whether or not it is pertinent to the case is not something we are allowed to individually assess.
It’s still evidence of what? The knife wasn’t involved in the crime. Nothing about the knife is likely to lead the police any closer to the real killer, or improve the prosecution’s case.
Also, this type of thought pattern could be dangerous. Should I become a “hoarder” because there is a remote possibility that the clerk’s fingerprints on this grocery store receipt, the time of the entry stamp on this parking garage ticket, trace chemicals present in the ink on this phone bill, or bacteria on this leaf that fell onto my car, might be “evidence” of something? E.g. perhaps there is a remote possibility that the paper that my credit card statement is printed on could be evidence of shenanigans at the paper mill. What’s the likelihood of anyone ever wanting it as evidence? It’s infinitesimal.
Where’s the line?
It’s relevant to the investigation. It doesn’t take a CSI to figure out that a knife which got your friend’s blood on it the day before he was murdered is something that investigators will want to check out.
The line is drawn at reasonable foreseeability, which is admittedly not a bright line, but is a well established legal definition and has been interpreted by a thousand courts.
If you think about it, it would be pretty dumb to write the laws about destroying evidence such that you had to be guilty of a crime for them to apply.
The point of destroying evidence is so that hopefully you can’t be found guilty of a crime. Hence if you successfully destroy the evidence and make it impossible to convict you, then by definition you’d also get away with destruction of the evidence.
RE: “the line”. If you are deliberately destroying or hiding something precisely because it has the potential to make you look bad in a criminal investigation, you are explicitly admitting it may be of some interest to investigators.
There is surely a fuzzy line. This example is surely not even close to the gray area.
I somehow doubt this argument is made entirely in good faith. It doesn’t take a huge leap in deductive logic to realize that a knife that accidentally cut a murder victim the day before just MIGHT be relevant to an investigation, without also making it unreasonable to throw out a 10 year old receipt.
Your knife with the murder victim’s blood on it could be used as evidence to build a case against you. If they can also establish motive (for you to murder your friend) and opportunity, you may find yourself indicted for the murder of your friend, despite your factual innocence. Thus you would be tempted to hide or destroy the knife before the authorities ever get ahold of it. The knife in this instance fits the OP’s description of “materials that could be construed as evidence against you, but actually aren’t”.
The investigators may think it is relevant but we can see that is not. Relevance shouldn’t be determined by an investigator’s interest but by the validity of the evidence. I can think of no reason to offer this knife to authorities and plenty of reasons to destroy it.
How about something less unlikely than a knife with murder victim blood.
Say you get word that the police are canvassing for witnesses to a hit & run accident in the area. Let’s say it was non-fatal but no clear description of the vehicle. You recently roadkilled a deer and recall that your vehicle in the driveway has deer blood and fresh front end damage.
Is it a crime to quickly wash the blood off your car? How about simply pulling the car into the garage?
Here is my non-lawyer guess.
If it is genuinely NOT evidence, and is your own property, and you destroy or dispose of it in a legal manner, it is not a crime.
If the police/prosecutor somehow learn of this, they might use in in your trial as evidence of a guilty conscience.
Former FBI agent John Douglas relates that Atlanta child murderer Wayne Williams was observed by police burning photos in his yard prior to his trial and, I believe, prior to his indictment. I don’t know if that came up at his trial, but how would a prosecutor prove that the photos in question were evidence of a crime?
Thanks,
Rob
Paging Bricker.
We’re talking about two different things here. The OP and you are asking whether the act of destroying things which may or may not be evidence is independently a crime. The answer is most likely no, unless you washed it off to avoid incriminating yourself.
However, if you were a suspect in the hit-and-run, a jury would be allowed to draw a negative inference from the fact that you washed blood from your car.
Not quite. The OP explicitly states that the material to be destroyed is NOT evidence of a crime, but that investigators may THINK it is evidence for some reason or another.
The deer blood is a pretty good example in one sense. If the cops see it, they may well impound the car for a while to test the blood and examine the damage. If you need the car to get to work, you might run out and do some cleaning to avoid the hassle.
The downside to making that choice is that, without other foundation, the prosecution can likely argue to the jury that they should assume the blood was inculpatory evidence, since you washed it away and they now can’t test it.
Whether the act of washing is itself a crime depends on a particular jurisdiction’s law. In the federal realm, for instance, the obstruction of justice statute can be triggered by this action, even if the evidence was ultimately not directly inculpatory. The federal government simply has to prove that there was a pending judicial proceeding, and that the accused impeded that proceeding by destruction of evidence. Since the evidence is gone, the government would be entitled to the inference that the evidence was material.
I love this question.
Let’s look at from the cop’s perspective.
They know a knife killed your friend. They know you two had dinner the night before he died. They also know (let’s argue) that you threw a knife in the ocean after he died of a stabbing.
I don’t think you help the police by throwing the knife away. They are still obliged to investigate your story and the difference between ‘he threw a kife in the ocean after the crime’ and ‘he had a knife with the victim’s blood on it’ is not enormous.
(Although, having written it out, maybe that IS an enormous difference).