Traffic stop for speeding, no blinker, etc.... Before car stops, someone tosses "something" out the window. It is found and is dope. Tampering? Would it fall under 37.09 (d)(1)...knowing an offense has been committed....subsequent investigation?

The 5th in Dallas says "no." ​See Pannell v. State, 7 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App. -- Dallas, 1999).

Actually... now that I look at this again, this decision was before the language specifically mentioned "subsequent proceeding," I think. Which makes more sense because of other case law out there. So disregard.

Instead, check out Hollingsworth v. State, 15 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App -- Austin, 2000). The issue there is really more about the dictionary definition of "concealed" and whether or not you get there on your facts.

Pannell has some VERY negative history. Williams v. State essentially overrules that holding. 270 S.W.3d 140 (Ct. Crim. App. - 2008).

I have charged this fact pattern on numerous occasions without a problem. It would be news to me if it's not allowed.

No, you're correct. As soon as I posted that I thought "that's just not right. I'm missing something." Thanks for the supplements.

Check out Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), dealing with a defendant guilty of attempted tampering with physical evidence by concealment when he abandoned a crack pipe by pulling it from his pocket and dropping it, but the police officer never lost sight of it. Hollingsworth has some negative history, the 11th has said they disagree with it twice, once on a case I argued as a defense attorney. I recently got to argue the holding of that same case that I was originally on the losing side of, which was kind of funny.