Destruction of Evidence Washington Dc Surveillance Advisory

The client’s mother resided in a private room at a licensed care facility in Washington D.C. And died after choking during a meal. 

At the time of death, no immediate report was made to law enforcement because the family believed the incident resulted from sudden physical decline. 

Funeral arrangements proceeded without suspicion until the client later learned that the assigned caregiver had allegedly left the resident unattended for an extended period. 

This information fundamentally altered the legal assessment of the incident and raised concerns of potential criminal exposure for third parties. 

Upon discovering the possibility of neglect, the client formally requested CCTV footage from the care facility. 

The facility did not deny the existence of footage at that time and instead stated that disclosure would occur after internal approval. 

Due to the delay, the client petitioned the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for an evidence preservation order. 

Despite the court’s order, the facility later responded that no relevant footage existed, creating a discrepancy that required legal scrutiny. 

Under D.C. Code § 22-722, a person commits an offense if they alter, destroy, conceal, or remove physical evidence with the intent to impair its availability in an official proceeding or investigation. 

The statute does not require that charges already be filed, only that an investigation or official proceeding was pending or reasonably foreseeable. 

In this case, the caregiver had already become the subject of a criminal negligence allegation, making the existence of a related criminal investigation objectively foreseeable. 

Because the care facility was not itself the subject of that investigation, its conduct could qualify as interference with evidence related to another person’s criminal exposure. 

Surveillance footage documenting caregiver presence, timing, and supervision is directly relevant to determining criminal negligence or wrongful death. 

The facility’s inconsistent explanations regarding the footage supported an inference of intentional concealment rather than accidental loss. 

Legal counsel advised that such conduct may satisfy both the “physical evidence” and “intent to impair availability” elements required for destruction of evidence. 

Accordingly, a criminal complaint was deemed legally viable under Washington D.C. Law. 

After receiving a comprehensive explanation of destruction of evidence under D.C. Law, the client elected to retain counsel for criminal complaint representation. 

The engagement included coordination with investigators, assessment of additional documentary evidence, and preparation of a formal complaint to law enforcement. 

By addressing destruction of evidence issues at an early stage, counsel positioned the matter for effective investigation and accountability. 

This case demonstrates how early legal analysis can convert uncertainty into a structured and actionable legal strategy.