Identify One Evidentiary Issue That Could Be

100 To 200 Words1 Identify One 1 Evidentiary Issue That Could Be Pr

One evidentiary issue that could arise regarding the admission of digital evidence at trial is the chain of custody and authenticity of the digital evidence. Ensuring that digital evidence remains unaltered from the moment of collection to presentation in court is crucial for its admissibility. Digital evidence can be easily tampered with or corrupted, which challenges its integrity and credibility. For instance, if a computer's hard drive containing crucial evidence is not properly secured and documented, opposing counsel could argue that the evidence has been contaminated or doctored, rendering it inadmissible. To resolve this issue, courts could require strict adherence to forensic protocols, such as creating a hash value at the time of collection and ensuring proper documentation of the chain of custody. Implementing these procedures helps establish that the evidence has remained unaltered and authentic, bolstering its credibility in court.

Paper For Above instruction

Digital evidence plays an increasingly vital role in modern criminal proceedings, but its admissibility raises complex legal issues primarily related to authenticity and integrity. One significant evidentiary issue involves establishing the chain of custody and ensuring the digital evidence has not been altered, tampered with, or corrupted from the moment of collection to presentation during trial. The inherently mutable nature of digital data necessitates meticulous procedures to maintain its credibility. If digital evidence such as a computer hard drive, email, or a social media account is compromised during handling or collection, courts might exclude it on grounds of unreliability, which could significantly impact case outcomes.

To mitigate such issues, forensic experts employ robust methods, including creating cryptographic hash values (e.g., MD5, SHA-256) at the point of collection. These mathematical summaries act as digital fingerprints, allowing investigators and courts to verify that the evidence remains unchanged throughout the investigation process. Additionally, maintaining comprehensive logs of all handling, transfers, and analyses performed on digital evidence reinforces its authenticity, providing transparency and accountability.

Moreover, courts can establish specific rules and standardized protocols for digital evidence collection and handling. For example, the FBI's guidelines and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provide frameworks for forensically sound procedures. When court admissibility depends on demonstrating that evidence has not been altered, these precautions instill confidence in digital evidence, supporting effective prosecution and defense strategies. Adherence to rigorous forensic procedures ensures that digital evidence withstands scrutiny and maintains its probative value.

Additional Consideration: Warrantless Digital Searches

Regarding warrantless searches of digital media, types such as plain-view searches and exigent circumstances are frequently justified by immediate needs or visibility without infringing on privacy rights. A plain-view search allows law enforcement to seize evidence if it is in plain sight during a lawful investigation; digital evidence stored openly or accessible without technical barriers can be seized without a warrant. Exigent circumstances apply when authorities believe that immediate action is necessary to prevent harm, destruction of evidence, or escape—such as arresting a suspect in the act of destroying digital content or during situations where delay could jeopardize investigations. Both types are justified by the urgent need to preserve evidence or ensure public safety, making them warrantless under specific legal standards.

References

  • Carrier, B. (2007). File system forensic analysis. Addison-Wesley.
  • Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital Investigation, 7(Supplement), S64-S73.
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2006). Guidelines on media handling for digital evidence. NIST Special Publication.
  • Rogers, M. K., et al. (2006). Techniques for recovering deleted or damaged files from digital media. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 1(3), 45-58.
  • US Supreme Court. (2014). Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373.
  • Swanson, M., et al. (2009). Practitioner’s guide to computer crime investigations. CRC Press.
  • Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the internet. Academic Press.
  • Stephenson, M., & Wiles, J. (2012). Digital evidence collection and preservation: Best practices. Law Enforcement Technology, 39(4), 42-45.
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Guidelines for computer forensic investigations.
  • Beebe, N. L., & Clark, J. G. (2005). A hierarchical, objectives-based process for digital investigations. Digital Investigation, 2(2), 82-98.

Related Assignments