Destruction, Removal, or Disposal of Property to Prevent Seizure. MCM, pt. IV, 103; UCMJ art. 134

Military Sexual Assault Defenses: Mistake of Fact Explained by a Military Defense Lawyer

YouTube video

  1. Elements.
    1. That one or more persons authorized to make searches and seizures were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize certain property;
    2. That the accused destroyed, removed, or otherwise disposed of that property with intent to prevent the seizure thereof;
    3. That the accused then knew that persons(s) authorized to make searches were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize certain property; and
    4. That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of the good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
  2. The offense has no requirement that criminal proceedings be pending or that the accused intended to impede the administration of justice. Cf United States v. Ridgeway , 13 M.J. 742 (A.C.M.R. 1982). The crime is constituted where the accused intended to prevent the seizure of certain property that the accused knew persons authorized to make seizures were endeavoring to seize.
  3. Not a defense that the search or seizure was technically defective. MCM, pt. IV, 103c.

Representing Guilty Clients: How do defense lawyers sleep at night?

YouTube video

Scroll to Top