UCMJ Article 131e: Prevention of Authorized Seizure of Property

Article 131e punishes destroying, removing, or otherwise disposing of property to keep it from being seized, when the accused knows that persons authorized to make searches and seizures are seizing it, about to seize it, or trying to seize it. A technical defect in the search or seizure is not a defense. The maximum is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and 5 years.

Disposing of property to defeat a seizure

10 U.S.C. § 931e: “Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that one or more persons authorized to make searches and seizures are seizing, are about to seize, or are endeavoring to seize property, destroys, removes, or otherwise disposes of the property with intent to prevent the seizure thereof shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Seizure, disposal, and knowledge

The Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 86.b:

1. one or more persons authorized to make searches and seizures were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize certain property;
2. the accused destroyed, removed, or otherwise disposed of that property with intent to prevent the seizure; and
3. the accused then knew that persons authorized to make searches were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize it.

Timing and knowledge

The statute covers three moments: a seizure in progress, one about to happen, and an attempt to seize. In each, the accused must know of it at the time. Disposing of property before any seizure is underway or imminent, or without knowing about it, does not meet the third element.

The intent element is separate. The act must be done “with intent to prevent the seizure,” not for some unrelated reason.

Who may seize

The Manual points to Mil. R. Evid. 316 for the military personnel who may make seizures (¶ 86.c). The persons seizing must be “authorized to make searches and seizures.”

A defective seizure is no excuse

“It is not a defense that a search or seizure was technically defective” (¶ 86.c). An accused cannot destroy property and then rely on a technical flaw in the authorization or the procedure as a defense to this charge.

Dishonorable discharge and 5 years

Under ¶ 86.d, the maximum is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Other interference offenses

Conduct in the case of a person against whom the accused had reason to believe criminal or disciplinary proceedings “were or would be” pending, with intent to obstruct the due administration of justice, can be obstructing justice under Article 131b. Knowing that another person committed a serious offense, wrongfully concealing it, and failing to report it as soon as possible is misprision under Article 131c.

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 931e, Article 131e, Prevention of authorized seizure of property (Cornell LII)
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 86

General information about military law, not legal advice for any individual case.