UCMJ Article 134 – Seizure: Destruction, Removal, or Disposal of Property to Prevent

This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who destroy, remove, or otherwise dispose of property in order to prevent it from being lawfully seized. The offense is closely tied to maintaining integrity in investigations, inspections, and lawful authority. Destroying or hiding property to avoid accountability undermines discipline, obstructs justice, and brings discredit upon the armed forces.

The article applies to both government and private property if it is subject to lawful seizure, whether as evidence, contraband, or material involved in an investigation.

Key Elements

The prosecution must prove:

  1. That certain property was subject to lawful seizure by competent authority.
  2. That the accused destroyed, removed, or otherwise disposed of the property.
  3. That the accused acted wrongfully and intentionally to prevent lawful seizure.
  4. That, under the circumstances, the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Scope and Application

Examples include:

  • Destroying illegal drugs during a barracks inspection to prevent discovery.
  • Throwing a weapon overboard when authorities approach.
  • Hiding or transferring stolen property to keep it from being seized.
  • Shredding documents or deleting files during an inspection or investigation.

The offense focuses on intent. Accidental loss of property is not punishable; the prosecution must show deliberate action to prevent lawful seizure.

Punishment

  • Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 5 years.

Defenses

Possible defenses include:

  • No lawful seizure: If the seizure was not authorized by competent authority.
  • No intent: If the accused did not act deliberately to prevent seizure.
  • Mistake of fact: If the accused reasonably believed the property was not subject to seizure.
  • Accident: If property was destroyed or lost unintentionally.

Examples

If a soldier flushes drugs down a toilet during an inspection, Article 134 applies. If a Marine throws contraband overboard to avoid it being found, it qualifies. If an airman deletes incriminating digital files before investigators can seize them, it is punishable. Conversely, if a sailor accidentally damages property before seizure without intent, it may not qualify.

Conclusion

Article 134 ensures accountability by punishing the destruction, removal, or disposal of property to avoid lawful seizure. The offense protects the integrity of investigations, inspections, and lawful authority, reinforcing the principle that service members cannot obstruct justice by tampering with property.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What qualifies as property subject to lawful seizure?
Property that investigators, commanders, or law enforcement have lawful authority to seize, such as contraband, evidence of a crime, or stolen items. It must be subject to proper jurisdiction. The government must show the seizure would have been lawful.

2. Does the property have to belong to the government?
No. Private property can also be subject to lawful seizure if it is contraband or evidence. For example, personal devices containing evidence of misconduct can be lawfully seized. The rule applies broadly.

3. What is the maximum punishment for this offense?
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 5 years. The harsh penalty reflects the seriousness of obstructing lawful authority. The act undermines justice and accountability.

4. Is accidental destruction of property punishable?
No. The prosecution must prove intent to prevent seizure. Accidents, mistakes, or careless loss of property do not qualify. Wrongful intent is the dividing line between misconduct and innocent mishap.

5. Can digital files be considered property under this article?
Yes. Deleting or corrupting electronic evidence to prevent lawful seizure qualifies. Modern courts treat digital records the same as physical property. Intentional deletion is a common example.

6. How does this differ from obstruction of justice?
Obstruction targets broader interference with investigations or proceedings. Seizure offenses specifically address destroying or hiding property to prevent its lawful capture. Both may apply in the same case.

7. Does the accused need to know a seizure was imminent?
Yes. The government must show the accused acted to prevent seizure by competent authority. If the accused did not know, intent cannot be proven. Knowledge of the likelihood of seizure is critical.

8. Can this offense apply during inspections?
Yes. Destroying or hiding contraband during inspections to avoid discovery qualifies. Whether routine inspections or targeted searches, the offense applies if seizure was lawful.

9. Can lawful orders ever excuse destruction of property?
Yes. If a superior orders disposal for legitimate reasons, the act may not be wrongful. Lawful orders given by competent authority can negate liability.

10. Why does the military punish this offense so strongly?
Because destruction or concealment of property undermines justice, hinders investigations, and erodes trust in discipline. The rule protects the military’s ability to enforce standards effectively. Strong punishment deters service members from obstructing accountability.

Sources

  • Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934, Article 134 (Seizure Offenses)
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition)
  • Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice
  • Navy JAGMAN (Judge Advocate General’s Manual) § 0166
  • Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice
  • Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States v. Daniels, 60 M.J. 69 (2004)
  • Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ web page

This content is for informational purposes only. If you are facing issues related to Article 134 or any other UCMJ provision, you should consult a qualified military attorney.

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 102 – Forcing a Safeguard UCMJ Article 102 criminalizes the act of forcing a safeguard. A safeguard is a formal protection or guarantee issued by a commander to protect persons, property, or places from harm by U.S. military forces. Safeguards are often written documents, posted...
  2. UCMJ Article 107 – Making False Official Statements UCMJ Article 107 punishes service members who knowingly make false official statements or entries, or who sign official documents knowing the information is false. Military justice depends on accuracy and honesty in official matters. Any deliberate falsehood in official documents,...
  3. UCMJ Article 108 – Damage, Wrongful Disposition, Sale, Loss or Destruction of U.S. Military Property UCMJ Article 108 addresses misconduct involving U.S. military property. The article criminalizes damaging, selling, destroying, misusing, or losing military property, whether through negligence or intentional acts. Because military property belongs to the United States and is essential for readiness, accountability...
  4. UCMJ Article 134 – Misprision of a Serious Offense Misprision under Article 134 punishes a service member who knows that a serious offense has been committed but fails to report it and instead conceals it. This misconduct undermines military justice by allowing crimes to go unreported and obstructs the...
  5. UCMJ Article 134 – Sentinel or Lookout: Offenses Against or By This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes misconduct either committed against a sentinel or lookout on duty, or misconduct by a sentinel or lookout who fails to properly perform their duties. Sentinels and lookouts hold critical positions in military security,...
  6. UCMJ Article 125 – Sodomy UCMJ Article 125 historically criminalized sodomy, defined as unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex, or with an animal. For decades, the article was broadly applied to both consensual and non-consensual acts. However, significant changes...
  7. UCMJ Article 120c – Other Sexual Misconduct UCMJ Article 120c criminalizes forms of sexual misconduct not specifically covered under Articles 120 or 120b. It was created to ensure that acts such as indecent exposure, voyeurism, and indecent visual recording are addressed under military law. This article reflects...
  8. UCMJ Article 134 – Obstructing Justice This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who wrongfully impede, interfere with, or obstruct the due administration of justice. The offense includes actions that delay, prevent, or corrupt investigations, judicial proceedings, or disciplinary processes. Because the military justice...
  9. UCMJ Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman UCMJ Article 133 criminalizes conduct by commissioned officers, cadets, or midshipmen that dishonors or disgraces them personally, or seriously compromises their standing as officers. The article is intentionally broad, designed to uphold the integrity and character expected of military leaders....
  10. UCMJ Article 134 – Kidnapping Kidnapping under Article 134 punishes the unlawful seizing, confining, inveigling, decoying, or carrying away of another person against their will. The offense is extremely serious because it violates personal liberty, threatens safety, and undermines public trust in the armed forces....
  11. UCMJ Article 134 – The General Article UCMJ Article 134, known as the “General Article,” is a catch-all provision that criminalizes a wide range of misconduct not specifically addressed in other articles of the UCMJ. It punishes behavior that is prejudicial to good order and discipline in...
  12. UCMJ Article 134 – Threat Communicating This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who wrongfully communicate a threat to injure another person, their property, or a third party. Discipline in the armed forces requires trust, respect, and order, and threatening language undermines that foundation....
  13. UCMJ Article 101 – Improper Use of Countersign UCMJ Article 101 punishes the improper use of countersigns, parole words, or watchwords used in military operations. A countersign is a security measure used by guards and sentries to distinguish friend from foe, especially in combat or high-security environments. Misuse...
  14. UCMJ Article 134 – False or Unauthorized Pass Offenses Under Article 134, service members can be punished for the wrongful making, altering, selling, or use of passes that grant liberty, leave, or access to restricted areas. A “pass” includes liberty passes, leave authorizations, and similar official documents. Because the...
  15. UCMJ Article 93 – Cruelty and Maltreatment UCMJ Article 93 criminalizes cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of any person subject to a service member’s orders. This provision is not limited to physical abuse. It covers acts of abuse of authority, whether through physical harm, threats, humiliation, harassment, or...