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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2809 (2026)

Tampering with physical evidence; classification

✓ current as of May 2026
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
Hampton v. Tempe, City of (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “Spoliation of Evidence 16 Hampton asserts a spoliation of evidence claim under A.R.S. § 13-2809, alleging 17 defendants deleted evidence that “would be vital” in the AZ POST investigation into the 18 use-of-force incident: the taser logs from her use-of-force incident.”
State v. Welfenberg (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “¶12 Under A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1), a person commits tampering with physical evidence by destroying, mutilating, altering, concealing, or removing physical evidence with the intent to impair its verity or availability and with the intent that it be “unavailable in an official…”
Hart v. Granado (D. Ariz. 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.”
Hart v. Granado (D. Ariz. 2023). “§ 1983 , tampering 10 with evidence under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2809, and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C.”
State v. Jones (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1). ¶11 Jones argues insufficient evidence supports that he knew a criminal proceeding would be instituted when he hid the shotgun.”
State v. Gaspar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-2809(A)(1) (tampering with physical evidence), -1706(A) (burning of wildlands).”
State v. Jaramillo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 13-2926(A); and tampering with physical evidence, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1). ¶14 The superior court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Jaramillo’s constitutional rights and Rule 26.”
Andrich v. Meyers, Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “, and the Meyers: negligence per se based on A.R.S. § 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…”
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 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.”
State v. Acosta (Ariz. Ct. App. 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.”
State v. Green (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “[d]estroys, mutilates, alters, conceals or removes physical evidence with the intent to impair its verity or availability[.”
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).
— 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 13-2926(A); and tampering with physical evidence, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1). ¶14 The superior court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Jaramillo’s constitutional rights and Rule 26.”
State v. Jones (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “” A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1). ¶11 Jones argues insufficient evidence supports that he knew a criminal proceeding would be instituted when he hid the shotgun.”
State v. Gaspar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-2809(A)(1) (tampering with physical evidence), -1706(A) (burning of wildlands).”
State v. Welfenberg (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “¶12 Under A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1), a person commits tampering with physical evidence by destroying, mutilating, altering, concealing, or removing physical evidence with the intent to impair its verity or availability and with the intent that it be “unavailable in an official…”
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.