This paper examines the role of digital evidence in modern forensic science and the legal system. Beginning with the historical foundations of forensic inquiry — from Archimedes' principle to fingerprinting and DNA analysis — the paper traces how scientific methodology has shaped evidence standards over time. It then focuses on digital or electronic evidence: its various forms, the legal frameworks governing its admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence, authentication requirements, chain-of-custody protocols, and the challenges posed by tampering and storage. The paper concludes by emphasizing that law enforcement must continuously adapt its tools and training to keep pace with an increasingly digital society.
Forensics is a discipline that uses standardized techniques to reconstruct an event, analyze what happened, and arrive at a more accurate conclusion than witness testimony alone can provide. For centuries, lacking even rudimentary techniques like fingerprinting or blood-type analysis, the legal system relied on confessions and witness accounts. We may turn to Ancient Greece for one of the first recorded examples of forensic inquiry. In the anecdote of Archimedes, the scholar was asked by the King to determine whether a crown made for him was pure gold or contained silver. The King had supplied pure gold but suspected the goldsmith of dishonesty. Archimedes noticed that while bathing, the water level in the tub rose, and he surmised that different objects displace different volumes of water. Using a mathematical calculation arrived at during his famous "Eureka" moment, he determined that silver had indeed been mixed in, and the goldsmith was punished (Archimedes' Principle, 2004).
As science improved, so did the use of forensic evidence within the court system. Science attempts to find answers, and over time its techniques evolve and are tested. New techniques may be controversial when first introduced, but once subjected to scientific inquiry — including peer-reviewed journals and rigorous testing — they become validated. Fingerprinting, for instance, was once considered unusable and inaccurate before it became the standard technique for crime scene analysis. Similarly, DNA evidence required higher levels of accuracy and reliability before becoming a global tool in fighting crime. Each succeeding generation uses the technology that is standard and available to find the best answers within the legal system, particularly through approaches that emphasize scientific collection, experimentation, and dissemination of evidence (Quinche & Margot, 2010).
When new techniques are introduced, it is vital that the standard scientific method — an agreed-upon approach of testing, data collection, replication, and dissemination of results — be applied. When techniques change, as with the introduction of DNA or digital evidence, forensic science must have a way to compare findings from the crime scene with laboratory testing and robust analysis of materials, in order to prove to the courts that detection methods were conducted in a manner supporting evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." The basic paradigms of "What happened?", "Why did it happen?", and "How did it happen?" are thus appropriate for the methodology and the types of questions a forensic specialist addresses when searching for the truth. This is important as we introduce digital evidence into crime scene management, methodology, and reporting. Overall, the process consists of: (1) formulation of a hypothesis to explain an event or phenomenon; (2) use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; (3) performance of experimental tests of those predictions by several independent experimenters; and (4) testing the evidence through peer review and proving its worth — whether as a technique or a result — to the court (Young, 2010).
As technologies have changed, so has the type of evidence used within a forensics model. In general, digital or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in electronic or digital form. This is, however, more complicated than simply replacing paper evidence with digital evidence, since digital evidence is usually something filmed, photographed, or obtained in a way that may be challenged in a court of law. Therefore, before accepting digital evidence, individual courts tend to determine whether it is authentic and relevant, how it was collected, whether it constitutes hearsay, and whether copies of certain evidence are adequate or whether the original is required (Frieden & Murray, 2011).
Because society has become far more electronic, the use of digital evidence has increased drastically. Driven by convenience in storage, professionalism in tone, and accuracy, courts have permitted increasing use of emails, digital photography, ATM transaction logs, word-processing documents, text or instant-message histories, computer memory (backups, printouts, etc.), GPS data and logs, door-lock logs, and digital video files (Casey, 2010).
Different legal systems have established different rules for digital evidence. In the United States, courts have applied the Federal Rules of Evidence to electronic evidence in a manner similar to traditional documentation. New technologies and more secure storage methods mean that digital evidence tends to be more difficult to modify or destroy when kept in secure locations, yet it is more readily available, can be more expensive to manage, and — with the right tools — more easily duplicated or altered. Because of this, courts often take extra steps to authenticate the evidence and to establish best evidence and privilege. In 2006, for instance, digital evidence was challenged on the grounds that it could be modified easily; however, courts have leaned toward rejecting tampering arguments, citing techniques that log file changes, keep certain data secure, and employ firewalls that prevent unauthorized modification (Ryan & Shpantzer, 2009).
"Protocols for securing and preserving digital evidence"
Digital evidence almost always requires additional steps to transform the material into admissible evidence — such as printing out documents or displaying data on a computer. Some argue that this change of format disqualifies the material from evidentiary procedures, but the Federal Rules of Evidence now state that "if data are stored in a computer . . . a printout or other output readable by sight . . . is an 'original'" (U.S. Government, 2012).
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.