18 U.S.C. § 2232

Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.—Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(b)Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction.—Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(c)Notice of Search or Execution of Seizure Warrant or Warrant of Arrest In Rem.—Whoever, having knowledge that any person authorized to make searches and seizures, or to execute a seizure warrant or warrant of arrest in rem, in order to prevent the authorized seizing or securing of any person or property, gives notice or attempts to give notice in advance of the search, seizure, or execution of a seizure warrant or warrant of arrest in rem, to any person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(d)Notice of Certain Electronic Surveillance.—Whoever, having knowledge that a Federal investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization under chapter 119 to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, in order to obstruct, impede, or prevent such interception, gives notice or attempts to give notice of the possible interception to any person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.(e)Foreign Intelligence Surveillance.—Whoever, having knowledge that a Federal officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization to conduct electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), in order to obstruct, impede, or prevent such activity, gives notice or attempts to give notice of the possible activity to any person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 802; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1103, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2143; Pub. L. 99–508, title I, § 109, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1858; Pub. L. 99–646, § 33, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3598; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7066, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4404; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 106–185, § 12, Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 218.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 121 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 65, 35 Stat. 1100).

Section was formed from the words following the first semicolon and ending with the second semicolon, in section 121 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

The remaining provisions of section 121 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to assaulting, resisting, or interfering with customs officers, revenue officers, or other persons, and to the rescue of seized property, constitute, along with provisions from other sections, sections 2231 and 2233 of this title.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (e), is Pub. L. 95–511, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1783, which is classified principally to chapter 36 (§ 1801 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of Title 50 and Tables.

Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–185 added subsecs. (a) to (c), redesignated first and second pars. of former subsec. (c) as subsecs. (d) and (e), respectively, inserted subsec. (e) heading, and struck out former subsecs. (a) and (b) which related to physical interference with search and notice of search, respectively.

1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

1988—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–690 inserted “of 1978” after “Surveillance Act”.

1986—Pub. L. 99–646 directed the designation of first and second pars. as subsecs. (a) and (b), respectively, which had been previously so designated by Pub. L. 99–508, and substituted “imprisoned not” for “imprisoned” in subsec. (a).

Pub. L. 99–508 designated first and second pars. as subsecs. (a) and (b), respectively, and inserted headings, and added subsec. (c).

1984—Pub. L. 98–473, § 1103(a), substituted provisions raising the maximum fine from $2,000 to $10,000 and raising the maximum term of imprisonment from two years to five years.

Pub. L. 98–473, § 1103(b), inserted paragraph relating to the penalties for warning the subject of a search.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–185 applicable to any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after the date that is 120 days after Apr. 25, 2000, see section 21 of Pub. L. 106–185, set out as a note under section 1324 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–508 effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1986, and, in case of conduct pursuant to court order or extension, applicable only with respect to court orders and extensions made after such date, with special rule for State authorizations of interceptions, see section 111 of Pub. L. 99–508, set out as a note under section 2510 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 106 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: United States v. Norbert Plavcak, 411 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Norbert Plavcak, 411 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 14× “Specifically, Plavcak was charged with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and to destroy or remove property to prevent seizure, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232…”

United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995). · cites it 6× “A jury convicted United States District Judge Robert Aguilar of one count of illegally disclosing a wiretap in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2232 (c), and of one count of endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of justice in violation of § 1503.”

United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 1519 ; and one count of destruction and removal of property to prevent seizure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (a). On September 21, 2005, Lessner pled guilty to all counts.”

United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Robert P. Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 21 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 8× “The convictions were for illegally disclosing a wiretap in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (c), and endeavoring to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “§§ 2275-76 ; destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure, 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (a); any action designed to impair a federal court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over a particular property, 18 U.”

United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Count IV charged Vosburgh with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2232 by knowingly destroying property in order to prevent its lawful seizure by the government.”

United States v. Ricky Keele, 755 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “Despite the general appeal waiver provision contained in his plea agreement, Keele now challenges the district court’s restitution order, arguing that it was not encompassed by his appeal waiver.”

United States v. Whorley, 550 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “First, 18 U.S.C. § 2232 defines minor as "any person under the age of eighteen years.”

United States v. Van Smith, 530 F.3d 967 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 2232 (a). The government argues that Smith's speedy trial clock should be "reset so that it reflects the speedy trial clock of the newly added codefendant.”

United States v. Premnath Birbal John T. Wright, 113 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 841 (a)(1), and for destruction of evidence subject to a search warrant — by flushing cocaine down the toilet as police closed in — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232 . Birbal was convicted of both counts (the “cocaine offenses”).”

United States v. Aguilar, 994 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 13× “§ 371 , disclosing the existence of a wiretap application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (c) (counts four and six), endeavoring to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Anthony F. Delguyd & Santo Maimone, 542 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “In a two-count indictment, Delguyd and Maimone were charged with destroying records to prevent their seizure as evidence by the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232 ; and Delguyd was also charged with resisting FBI agents while they attempted to execute the search warrant upon…”

Show all 106 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) — 1 case

Sharp v. Wenski (S.D. Fla. 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.