Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What laws could apply to a former attorney general who removes state records in Florida?
Executive summary
Available reporting and statutes point to at least two Florida legal frameworks that could apply if a former attorney general removed state records: the state tampering-with-evidence statute, Florida Statute 918.13, which forbids altering, concealing, destroying, or removing records when a criminal investigation or proceeding is pending and is a third‑degree felony punishable by up to five years and a $5,000 fine [1] [2]; and the witness‑tampering statute, Florida Statute 914.22, which forbids conduct intended to cause a person to withhold a record from an official investigation or proceeding [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention any specific prosecutions of a former Florida attorney general for removing state records.
1. Which criminal statutes fit the facts most directly: evidence tampering and witness tampering
If a person knowingly “altered, destroyed, concealed, or removed any record, document, or thing” with the purpose of impairing its availability or verity in a criminal trial or investigation, Florida’s tampering‑with‑or‑fabricating‑physical‑evidence law, Section 918.13, applies and is charged as a third‑degree felony (up to five years’ prison and a $5,000 fine) [1] [2]. Separately, Section 914.22 criminalizes conduct intended to induce someone “to withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official investigation or official proceeding,” which targets misleading or coercive conduct directed at people who might produce records or testimony [3] [4].
2. Elements prosecutors must prove and why intent matters
Under the statutory summaries and practice guides, conviction under 918.13 requires that the defendant knew a trial, proceeding, or investigation was pending or about to be instituted and acted with the purpose of impairing the evidence’s availability or truthfulness [5] [6]. Defense materials repeatedly note that specific intent is central — prosecutors must show the removal was intended to thwart an investigation or proceeding [5] [7]. For 914.22 the state must show intent to cause someone to withhold a record or otherwise interfere with official information flow [3].
3. Penalties and practical consequences cited in legal guides
Multiple legal sources and local defense firms list 918.13 as a Level 3 offense under Florida’s punishment scheme, carrying up to five years’ incarceration, up to five years’ probation, and a $5,000 fine; guides echo similar penalties for witness‑tampering convictions [2] [7] [8]. Beyond criminal penalties, conviction carries collateral consequences — a permanent felony record that can affect employment and civil liberties — as noted in law‑firm summaries of witness‑tampering and tampering statutes [9] [8].
4. Public‑records law and administrative remedies are a parallel track
Florida’s public‑records framework (Chapter 119 and the Sunshine Law) creates rights of access and administrative remedies: the public can request records and seek mediation through the Attorney General’s Open Government Mediation Program if access is denied [10] [11]. The law also contemplates criminal penalties for knowing, unjustified refusals or delays in producing records in some contexts, and open‑government manuals warn that “unjustified delay” can constitute an unlawful refusal with potential penalties [12] [10]. Available sources do not lay out a direct criminal statute tied solely to a public‑records custodian’s improper retention beyond these remedies and the tampering statutes.
5. Potential civil, ethical, and political consequences not covered by criminal law summaries
Sources emphasize that public officials face more than criminal exposure: removal from office via impeachment is a constitutionally available remedy for misconduct in office in Florida, and the state’s impeachment procedures can lead to removal after legislative action [13]. In addition, open‑government guides and legal commentators note litigation and public records lawsuits as common responses to withheld or missing government records [14] [15]. Available sources do not present a specific recorded instance of a former Florida attorney general prosecuted for removing state records; such cases are not found in the current reporting provided.
6. Competing perspectives and enforcement realities
Legal practice guides warn prosecutors must establish intent and knowledge for tampering charges, making some prosecutions challenging; defense lawyers stress these intent elements and the availability of defenses [5] [7]. Advocacy groups and open‑government commentators stress strong statutory access rights in Florida and note the Attorney General’s role in mediation, while law‑firm pieces focus on criminal exposure and penalties [10] [9]. This split reveals a practical tension: powerful statutory protections for records and tough criminal penalties on paper, but real‑world difficulty for prosecutors to prove intent and the existence of other administrative or civil remedies [5] [15].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the documents and legal guides provided; it does not cite any specific criminal complaints, indictments, or case law applying these statutes to a former attorney general because available sources do not mention such prosecutions (not found in current reporting).