tampering with evidence

{{Short description|Crime consisting of destructing or damaging evidence}}

Tampering with evidence, or evidence tampering, is an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation (usually) by a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory authority.{{cite journal|last1=Sanchirico|first1=Chris W.|title=Evidence Tampering|journal=Duke Law Journal|date=February 2004|volume=53|issue=4|page=1215|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=dlj|access-date=21 July 2017}} It is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.{{cite web |url=https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ProvIds=pr204-#pr204- |title=Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence |website=Singapore Statutes |date=2 November 2020 |access-date=2 November 2020}}

Tampering with evidence is closely related to the legal issue of spoliation of evidence, which is usually the civil law or due process version of the same concept (but may itself be a crime). Tampering with evidence is also closely related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice, and these two kinds of crimes are often charged together. The goal of tampering with evidence is usually to cover up a crime or with intent to injure the accused person.{{cite web |date=2 November 2020 |title=False charge of offence made with intent to injure |url=https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ProvIds=pr211-#pr211- |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200624205724/https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ProvIds=pr211-#pr211- |archive-date=24 June 2020 |access-date=2 November 2020 |website=Singapore Statutes}}{{Cite web |title=Wrongful Convictions in Singapore: A General Survey of Risk Factors |url=http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/933 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612180412/https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/933/ |archive-date=12 June 2020 |access-date=2 November 2020}}

Spoliation

Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004). For an overview of spoliation, see generally Michael Zuckerman, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1536805 Yes, I Destroyed the Evidence -- Sue Me?], Journal of Computer and Information Law Historically, it has also sometimes been referred to as spoilage of evidence.{{Cite journal|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25762410 |title=Spoilage of Evidence – Crimes, Sanctions, Inferences and Torts|author1=Katz, Scott S.|author2=Muscaro, Anne Marie|year=1993|journal=Tort & Insurance Law Journal|volume=29|issue=1|pages=51–76|jstor=25762410 }}

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a trier of fact can draw from a party's destruction of evidence that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

However, in U.S. federal courts, updates to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2015 have resulted in significant decline in spoliation sanctions.{{cite web|title=How Corporate Lawyers Made It Harder to Punish Companies That Destroy Electronic Evidence|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/how-corporate-lawyers-made-it-harder-to-punish-companies-that-destroy-electronic-evidence|work=ProPublica |first=Will |last=Young |date=January 27, 2020 |access-date=11 March 2020}}

=Theory=

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.{{cite web|url=http://library.findlaw.com/1996/Nov/1/231209.html|title=Evidence Spoliation: A Growing New Tort|website=Library.findlaw.com|access-date=13 November 2017}}

By law enforcement

When police confiscate or destroy a citizen's photographs or recordings of officers' misconduct, the police's act of destroying the evidence may be prosecuted as an act of evidence tampering, if the recordings being destroyed are potential evidence in a criminal or regulatory investigation of the officers themselves.{{cite web|title=Know Your Rights: Protesters and Photographers|url=https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers-what-do-if-you-are-stopped-or-detained-taking-photographs?redirect=free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers|website=ACLU|access-date=21 July 2017}}

Examples of evidence spoliation

Enron scandal, and the Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States case
Iran–Contra affair, and Fawn Hall's role
The Metropolitan Police file-shredding{{Cite news |date=2017-02-09 |title=Inquiry into Met Police file shredding claims |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-38916281 |access-date=2023-11-28}}
Conrad Black's removal of 13 sealed evidence boxes from his office during a trial{{Cite news |last=Siklos |first=Richard |date=2007-07-14 |title=Conrad Black Found Guilty in Fraud Trial |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/13cnd-black.html |access-date=2023-11-28 |issn=0362-4331}}
CIA Director Richard Helms' order to destroy MKUltra files

tampering with evidence

Spoliation

=Theory=

By law enforcement

Examples of evidence spoliation

See also

References

Further reading