Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.150 (2026)

Tampering with physical evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he or she:
(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective official proceeding; or
(b) Knowingly presents or offers any false physical evidence.
(2) "Physical evidence" as used in this section includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.
(3) Tampering with physical evidence is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 s 397; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.72.150.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013). “5 (Lexis-Nexis 2008); and Washington, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.72.150 (West 2009 & Supp.”
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “295 (1990) (“makes, produces or offers”); Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 9A.72.150 (West 1988) (“presents or offers”).”
Henderson v. Tyrrell, 910 P.2d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “3 Other approaches involve remedies that may be applied outside the pending litigation, and therefore are not applicable here.”
State v. Wilson, 922 P.2d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a). The chain of custody rule provides that an exhibit is sufficiently identified when it is declared to be in the same condition as at the time of its initial acquisition.”
State v. Martine, 371 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “09(a)(1)), and Washington (Wash Rev Code § 9A.72.150(2)). As noted, no other jurisdiction appears to have adopted Oregon’s “or other evidence” construct.”
Burdell v. Commonwealth, 990 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1999). “about to be instituted”); Washington, Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 9A.72.150 (West 1988) ("is pending or about to be instituted”).”
State Of Washington, V. Frank Edmund Walton, 542 P.3d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “150, required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 28th day of March, 2020, the defendant destroyed, mutilated, concealed, removed or altered physical evidence; (2) The defendant had reason to believe an official proceeding was pending or was…”
In re Recall of Hatcher, 478 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 3× “Illegally tampered with physical evidence by directing the distribution of ammunition that was potential evidence of his own alleged unlawful acts (petition charges 5 and 6) Sergeant Erickson alleges that Sheriff Hatcher violated RCW 9A.72.150 by soliciting another officer to…”
State of Washington v. Riley James Hillestad (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a) reads: (1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he or she: (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes,…”
Sharon Laska v. Maolei Zhu (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Moreover, even if Zhu were able to show that the Neighbors’ counsel violated RCW 9A.72.150, a violation of the statute alone is not grounds for reversal on appeal.”
State Of Washington, V. Kyran J. Lien (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “54146-7-II RCW 9A.72.150(1) states that a person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if that person destroys physical evidence without legal authority “having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted.”
State of Washington v. Claude L. Merritt (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Turning to the second element, both parties agree that the State failed to prove that Merritt knew an official proceeding was about to be instituted when he cleaned up the blood in the shop.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.150(1) — 3 cases
State Of Washington, V. Kyran J. Lien (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “54146-7-II RCW 9A.72.150(1) states that a person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if that person destroys physical evidence without legal authority “having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted.”
Sharon Laska v. Maolei Zhu (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Moreover, even if Zhu were able to show that the Neighbors’ counsel violated RCW 9A.72.150, a violation of the statute alone is not grounds for reversal on appeal.”
State of Washington v. Claude L. Merritt (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Turning to the second element, both parties agree that the State failed to prove that Merritt knew an official proceeding was about to be instituted when he cleaned up the blood in the shop.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.150(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Wilson, 922 P.2d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a). The chain of custody rule provides that an exhibit is sufficiently identified when it is declared to be in the same condition as at the time of its initial acquisition.”
State of Washington v. Riley James Hillestad (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a) reads: (1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he or she: (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes,…”
State of Washington v. Claude L. Merritt (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Turning to the second element, both parties agree that the State failed to prove that Merritt knew an official proceeding was about to be instituted when he cleaned up the blood in the shop.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.150(2) — 1 case
State v. Martine, 371 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “09(a)(1)), and Washington (Wash Rev Code § 9A.72.150(2)). As noted, no other jurisdiction appears to have adopted Oregon’s “or other evidence” construct.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.150(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Wilson, 922 P.2d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a). The chain of custody rule provides that an exhibit is sufficiently identified when it is declared to be in the same condition as at the time of its initial acquisition.”
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.