Tampering with Evidence — Florida § 918.13

Tampering with evidence under Florida § 918.13 is a third-degree felony carrying up to 5 years in state prison and a $5,000 fine — and a second-degree felony (up to 15 years) when the case relates to a capital felony. This charge appears in a wide range of criminal cases — from drug arrests where evidence was flushed, to domestic violence cases where weapons were hidden, to complex fraud cases where digital records were deleted. It can be charged as the primary offense or stacked on top of whatever underlying crime is being investigated.

Legally reviewed by Tonmiel Rodriguez, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer — last reviewed June 2026.

What Does Florida § 918.13 Prohibit?

Florida § 918.13 makes it a third-degree felony for any person to knowingly and willfully alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with the purpose of impairing its verity or availability in any pending or reasonably anticipated official proceeding. The statute covers physical evidence, documents, digital records, and any other “thing” that could be relevant to a proceeding.

The core elements the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant altered, destroyed, concealed, or removed a record, document, or thing
2. The defendant acted knowingly and willfully
3. The defendant’s purpose was to impair the verity or availability of the item in an official proceeding
4. An official proceeding was pending or reasonably anticipated at the time of the conduct

The “reasonably anticipated” standard is broad. A person does not have to know that charges have been filed or that an arrest is imminent — they only need to have reason to believe that an official proceeding is likely. This means that someone who destroys evidence at the very beginning of an investigation, before any arrest, can still be charged under § 918.13.

What Conduct Triggers § 918.13 Charges in Practice?

In my experience across Polk, Highlands, and Hardee Counties, tampering with evidence charges arise in these common scenarios:

• Drug disposal: Flushing drugs, throwing them from a car window, or swallowing contraband when police are approaching. This is the most frequently charged situation — a § 918.13 count is almost always added to the drug possession or trafficking charge.
• Weapon concealment: Hiding a firearm, knife, or other weapon after an incident, knowing investigators are looking for it.
• Digital evidence deletion: Deleting text messages, emails, photos, social media posts, or other digital records that are relevant to an investigation. Digital forensics frequently recovers this data, and the deletion itself becomes evidence of consciousness of guilt.
• Physical document destruction: Shredding, burning, or otherwise destroying financial records, contracts, correspondence, or other documents relevant to a fraud or theft investigation.
• Clothing or physical evidence disposal: Washing clothing, disposing of shoes, or cleaning a vehicle in the aftermath of a crime in a way designed to destroy forensic evidence.
• Cell phone disposal: Discarding, breaking, or factory-resetting a cell phone during an investigation to prevent law enforcement from accessing its contents.

What Are the Penalties for Tampering With Evidence in Florida?

As a third-degree felony (second-degree when the proceeding or investigation involves a capital felony), § 918.13 carries:

• Up to 5 years in state prison
• Up to 5 years felony probation
• $5,000 fine plus court costs and mandatory surcharges
• Permanent felony record with all associated collateral consequences

Under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code, § 918.13 is a Level 3 offense scoring 16 points. When charged alongside other felonies — drug trafficking, robbery, fraud — the combined scoresheet points can push the total sentence significantly higher than any individual charge would produce alone. At trial, the evidence-tampering conduct is also presented to the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt on the underlying charge, creating a prejudicial narrative beyond the specific tampering charge itself.

What Defenses Apply to a Florida § 918.13 Charge?

The most important defense elements in tampering with evidence cases:

No knowledge of pending or anticipated proceeding. The statute requires that the defendant knew or should have known that an official proceeding was pending or reasonably anticipated. If the evidence was destroyed or concealed before any investigation was underway and without any reason to anticipate one, this element fails. This defense is strongest in situations involving the destruction of personal property during the normal course of daily activity, without any prior police contact or investigation.

No intent to impair availability in a proceeding. The defendant must have acted with the specific purpose of impairing the evidence’s availability in an official proceeding. Routine deletion of old text messages, normal cleaning of a vehicle, or ordinary disposal of personal property — without the specific intent to obstruct an investigation — does not satisfy this element. The State must prove that the destruction was targeted at preventing specific evidence from being used.

Accidental destruction. Evidence that was accidentally destroyed — a phone damaged in the same incident under investigation, records lost in a fire unrelated to the charged conduct — is not tampering. The “knowingly and willfully” requirement excludes accidental destruction.

Identity — defendant was not the person who destroyed the evidence. In many cases, the State attempts to prove that the defendant was responsible for missing or destroyed evidence based on circumstantial evidence. I challenge the sufficiency of that proof and explore alternative explanations for the evidence’s absence.

The item was not related to any official proceeding. If the item destroyed was not material to any pending or anticipated proceeding — it was irrelevant personal property — the required nexus to an official proceeding is not established.

How Does Tampering With Evidence Interact With the Underlying Charge?

Tampering with evidence charges interact with the primary case in two significant ways. First, at trial on the underlying charge, the State is permitted to present the evidence-tampering conduct as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt — arguing that the defendant destroyed evidence because they knew they were guilty of the primary offense. This is highly prejudicial and difficult to neutralize without directly addressing the tampering conduct in the defense strategy.

Second, the tampering charge itself adds to the sentencing scoresheet and creates additional plea leverage for the prosecution. A defendant who might have negotiated a favorable resolution on the underlying charge alone now faces a stacked prosecution with more total exposure. I work to either challenge the tampering charge as a standalone legal matter — attacking its elements through pretrial motions — or negotiate its disposition as part of a comprehensive resolution of the entire case.

In drug cases especially, the § 918.13 charge is used almost reflexively whenever contraband is not recovered. I challenge this charging pattern aggressively. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that specific evidence was destroyed, that the defendant was the one who destroyed it, and that it was done with the intent to impair an official proceeding. Proving all three elements without physical evidence is not always as straightforward as prosecutors assume.

What to Do After a Tampering With Evidence Arrest

After a § 918.13 arrest, the priorities are: invoke your right to remain silent immediately; make no statements to law enforcement about what you may have done or why; do not access or further disturb any evidence that may still be relevant; and contact a Board Certified criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible. The State’s evidence-tampering investigation is ongoing after the arrest — additional evidence of what was destroyed and how can continue to emerge. The earlier I am involved, the better I can control the development of that investigation.

How Do Florida Prosecutors Prove Tampering With Evidence?

The evidentiary challenge for prosecutors in § 918.13 cases is proving both that evidence was destroyed and that the defendant was the one who destroyed it with the required intent. In drug cases, where the drugs were physically disposed of by the defendant during a police encounter, this is relatively straightforward — officers observe the disposal and testify to it, and there is no physical contraband to test.

In more complex cases involving digital evidence deletion, document destruction, or weapon concealment, the State’s proof is more attenuated and more contestable. Digital forensics examiners are used to recover deleted files and establish deletion dates and times. Witnesses who observed the destruction are called. Cell phone location data is used to place the defendant at a location where evidence was disposed of. Each of these evidence types has vulnerabilities that an experienced defense lawyer can exploit through cross-examination, expert testimony, and suppression motions.

The consciousness of guilt argument is the prosecution’s most powerful tool in tampering cases. When a defendant disposed of evidence, prosecutors argue to the jury: “Why would someone destroy evidence if they weren’t guilty?” This narrative must be directly addressed in the defense case — either by showing the destruction was accidental or explained by innocent conduct, or by excluding the tampering evidence entirely through suppression so the jury never hears it.

What Is the Relationship Between Tampering With Evidence and Drug Charges?

In Polk, Highlands, and Hardee Counties, the most frequently charged version of § 918.13 arises in drug arrests where the defendant is observed disposing of contraband. This almost always results in: (1) a drug charge for whatever the underlying substance was, even without physical evidence, if the State has sufficient proof through other means; and (2) a § 918.13 tampering charge for the disposal itself.

The drug charge without physical evidence requires the State to prove the nature and quantity of the substance through testimony — typically the officer’s description, any observable packaging, odor, and similar circumstantial evidence. The § 918.13 charge requires proof of intentional disposal with intent to impair an official proceeding. Both charges have vulnerabilities, and I attack both simultaneously.

A critical issue in these cases is whether the defendant flushed the contraband before or after any official proceeding was pending or reasonably anticipated. If the disposal happened before any police interaction and without any reason to anticipate police contact, the “pending or reasonably anticipated proceeding” element may not be satisfied for the § 918.13 charge even if other drug charges remain viable. Pinning down exactly when the proceeding became reasonably anticipated is often what decides the tampering count.

How Does Tampering With Evidence Affect Sentencing and Plea Negotiations?

The § 918.13 charge serves dual purposes in the prosecution’s strategy: it adds scoresheet points under the FCPC, increasing the total sentencing range, and it gives the prosecutor an additional charge to offer to drop in plea negotiations. Understanding how to use this dynamic — whether to fight the tampering charge aggressively or trade it in negotiation — requires a precise analysis of the evidence on each count and the total sentencing picture for the client.

For clients with prior records or those facing multiple charges, the scoresheet impact of a § 918.13 conviction can be significant. A Level 3 offense at 16 additional points can push a client over a sentencing threshold that transforms a probation-eligible sentence into a mandatory prison sentence. I always calculate the full scoresheet implications before advising on any plea decision in multi-count cases.

Frequently Asked Questions: Tampering With Evidence in Florida

What is tampering with evidence under Florida law?

Florida § 918.13 is a third-degree felony for knowingly and willfully altering, destroying, concealing, or removing any record, document, or thing to impair its availability in any pending or reasonably anticipated official proceeding. Maximum penalty is 5 years in state prison — 15 years (second-degree felony) when the case relates to a capital felony.

Can I be charged with § 918.13 if no official proceeding has started yet?

Yes. The statute covers both pending proceedings and reasonably anticipated ones. If you had reason to believe an investigation was likely, destroying evidence in advance of charges can still be charged.

Does flushing drugs count as tampering with evidence?

Yes. Florida courts have consistently held that disposing of drugs when police are present constitutes tampering under § 918.13, and it is routinely charged alongside the underlying drug offense.

What if I destroyed evidence that belonged to me?

Ownership is irrelevant. Section 918.13 applies to any record, document, or thing. Destroying your own property with intent to impair an official proceeding is still tampering.

Can deleting text messages or emails lead to a § 918.13 charge?

Yes. Intentionally deleting digital records to prevent their use in an official proceeding constitutes tampering. Digital forensics often recovers deleted data, and the deletion itself becomes evidence of consciousness of guilt at trial.

What defenses apply to tampering with evidence charges?

Key defenses include: no knowledge of a pending or anticipated proceeding; no intent to impair an official proceeding; accidental destruction; the defendant was not the person who destroyed the evidence; or the item was not material to any official proceeding.