Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2809 (2026)

Tampering with physical evidence; classification

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person commits tampering with physical evidence if, with intent that it be used, introduced, rejected or unavailable in an official proceeding which is then pending or which such person knows is about to be instituted, such person:

1. Destroys, mutilates, alters, conceals or removes physical evidence with the intent to impair its verity or availability; or

2. Knowingly makes, produces or offers any false physical evidence; or

3. Prevents the production of physical evidence by an act of force, intimidation or deception against any person.

B. Inadmissibility of the evidence in question is not a defense.

C. Tampering with physical evidence is a class 6 felony.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante, 425 P.3d 1078 (Ariz. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante, 425 P.3d 1078 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-2809, -3102, -3407. As previously explained, the admissible evidence supporting the prosecution's case on these counts was circumstantial and prompted several questions from the jury about the baggie's ownership.”
State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013). “610 (2010); Arizona, Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-2809 (2010); Arkansas, Ark.”
Hitch v. Pima Cnty. Superior Court, 708 P.2d 72 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “The Arizona Bar Ethics Committee opinion focused on A.R.S. § 13-2809, Tampering with Physical Evidence, and § 13-2510, et seq.”
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Code § 13A-10-129 (1994) ("makes, presents or offers”); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-2809 (1989) ("makes, produces or offers"); Colo.”
State v. Escalante, 396 P.3d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1) (2010). ¶ 50 The record indicates that Esca-lante knew he was being followed by the officers on the night of his arrest, but he continued driving.”
Schwartz v. Superior Ct. in Maricopa Cty., 925 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “We also note, without offering an opinion about its possible application, that a person who destroys physical evidence “with intent that it be .”
State v. Self, 661 P.2d 224 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “” The statutes in question provide, in pertinent part: § 13-2809. Tampering with physical evidence; classification A.”
Burdell v. Commonwealth, 990 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1999). “tit. 11, § 1269(2) ("official proceeding or prospective official proceeding”); District of Columbia, D.”
Hart v. Granado, No. 2:22-cv-02067 (D. Ariz. Jan. 8, 2024). · cites it 7× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2809 9 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim for tampering with evidence must be 10 dismissed because Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2809 is a criminal statute that does not 11 provide a basis for civil liability.”
State v. Jaramillo, 460 P.3d 321 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “The court found Jaramillo’s family support as a mitigating factor and found the following aggravating factors: extensive criminal history, offenses committed for pecuniary gain, harm to the victim, and emotional harm to the victim’s family.”
State v. Acosta, No. 1 CA-CR 15-0523 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 23, 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 123-2809, when in fact he was charged under A.R.S. § 13-2809. Second, the minute entry does not reflect that the court sentenced Acosta on the tampering charge pursuant to A.”
Andrich v. Meyers, Jr., No. 1 CA-CV 18-0755 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 13-2809, tortious interference with Andrich’s plea agreement, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and negligently destroying Andrich’s laptop, server hard drives, and personal possessions.1 He also alleged the following claims against…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2809(A): 1 case
Schwartz v. Superior Ct. in Maricopa Cty., 925 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “We also note, without offering an opinion about its possible application, that a person who destroys physical evidence “with intent that it be .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2809(A)(1): 5 cases
State v. Escalante, 396 P.3d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “” A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1) (2010). ¶ 50 The record indicates that Esca-lante knew he was being followed by the officers on the night of his arrest, but he continued driving.”
State v. Jaramillo, 460 P.3d 321 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “The court found Jaramillo’s family support as a mitigating factor and found the following aggravating factors: extensive criminal history, offenses committed for pecuniary gain, harm to the victim, and emotional harm to the victim’s family.”
State v. Jones, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0431 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2022).
State v. Gaspar, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0182 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2022).
State v. Welfenberg, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0177 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.