Computer Forensics: Admissibility of Evidence - Admission/Application Essay Example

In recent years the use of computer forensics has been crucial in proving the guilt or innocence of accused criminals. The searching of personal gadgets and the use of DNA databases has opened new avenues for investigators. Many arguments arise as to the reliability and admissibility of this information in court. However, with the prevalence of technology in our everyday lives, computer forensics is an obvious by-product. Modern devices such as cell or smart phones, computers, and tablets can hold vast amounts of data. DNA collected in a case years old can be compared in databanks in a shorter amount of time. All of this data can be utilized, giving a court of law a chance to bring justice into the world. C. M. Whitcomb in his article, “The Evolution of Digital Evidence in Forensic Science Laboratories,” describes how computer forensics has grown over the last four decades. This history shows how the need of computer forensics grew into what it is today. Whitcomb shows how the FBI, in the early 1980s, adapted to this new form of evidence. It was such a new idea that many local agencies used the FBI to process this evidence. Investigators had to develop methods and techniques to access information from computers. Whitcomb writes that one FBI agent, in 1985, received his first piece of evidence from a computer in the form of an 8-inch floppy disk. Now, in the early 21st century, there are national and international organizations that provide information to others in the field. This helps insure that forensic teams are up to date on how to gather the most substantial evidence possible. Whitcomb’s article demonstrates how computer forensics has been actively used for several decades. It also shows the evolution of forensics and its need to keep up with similar changing technology. The ability to use this evidence over the years gives precedent for future cases. Yet, evidence is evidence. “It must be collected, preserved, and examined in a forensically sound manner to help ensure that the evidence is acceptable in court and that justice is served” (Whitcomb, 2007). “Advanced forensic ability leads to advanced law enforcement capability” (Treglia, 2012). Treglia admits this is not a ground breaking thought, but it rings true. Using the Conrad Murray case and the Casey Anthony trial, Treglia shows how computer forensics shaped these cases. A cell phone recording was used to support the prosecution’s argument that Murray was negligent in his actions. Those actions lead to Murray being found guilty of negligence, resulting in the death of Michael Jackson. Computer forensics was used in the Casey Anthony trial. They showed the court the specific history of activity on Anthony’s computer. What was shown is that Anthony visited numerous sites with information of chloroform, before her daughter’s death. A timeline verified that there was inconsistency in the testimony. It helped in the cross examination of Anthony’s mother and proved it was indeed Anthony that accessed the information. Both of these cases are examples of what has become commonplace in the court system. Cell phone towers are giving general locations and times, proving or disproving a suspect’s alibi. GPS locaters in phones and cars also pinpoint times and places when and where a suspect has been, providing more credibility to the forensics used in court. While the outcomes and evidence of each case are vastly different, it demonstrates the impact of computer forensics. As computer forensics has grown, new and more efficient computer programs have been developed. This new technology has given law enforcement the ability to build massive databases to better identify suspects through DNA. “DNA typing could be applied in crimes without suspects” (the Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, 1992, p. 111). A proponent for a DNA database, they saw how this could help investigators solve more crimes with only a biological link as evidence. The Committee on DNA Technology strongly compared DNA typing to the established Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems, or AFIS. In fact, their writing shows how DNA and fingerprints can be used in tandem. This is because each crime holds a variety of evidence. Violent crimes can have a higher rate of bodily fluids as evidence, while less violent crimes may create more fingerprints. From 1992 up to now, much has happened with DNA forensics. Now we have CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System, and NDIS, the National DNA Index System. The NDIS is the database that is used by federal, state, and local laboratories and CODIS is the database the FBI utilizes (fbi.gov). Along with fbi.gov (the Federal Bureau of Investigation), there are also websites such as dna.gov (DNA Initiative) and nij.gov (National Institute of Justice) that provide information to the general and professional public on DNA. This information covers court cases, research, and regulations in federal statutes. This available information shows that there are regulations to follow when using these databases. There is up to date research for the forensic scientist to access and precedent cases to guide the courts. William H. Allen of the Florida Institute of Technology states: “Forensic examination of computer and other digital data has become an indispensable tool for law enforcement” (Allen, 2005). Allen also notes that great care is needed for processing computer evidence. At times, reviewing files can alter the data in minimal ways. This can affect the information or timeline. However, by using the proper functions and investigative programs, these changes can be recorded or avoided. In the book Computer Evidence: Collection and Preservation by Christopher Brown the procedures of maintaining digital evidence is discussed in more detail. “We define computer forensics as the art and science of applying computer science to aid the legal process” (Brown, 2005, p. 3). Brown encourages procedural structure with individual thought. While steeped in methodologies, the forensic scientist is an investigator that attempts to solve the puzzles in front of them. Sometimes a solution to a problem must be found by thinking creatively. This way of thinking is how advancements are made. “The primary goals in computer forensics of collecting, preserving, filtering, and presenting digital artifacts can also be used as guidelines to describe the computer forensics process” (Brown, 2005, p. 6). Computer forensics have become, what Brown calls, a metaprofession. To become a computer forensic scientist, one must use many skills. If they are involved in a crime scene, they must follow procedures. When they are examining the evidence in a lab, again, procedures must be adhered to. Certification and education are essential to this profession. It is part of the job description that a computer forensic scientist uses many skills. They need to follow the procedures set before them. They are investigators that must follow the same code of ethics that all investigators should follow. With all of the proof that computer forensics and databases are established and reliable, there are times that the evidence is in question. Treglia, while reviewing the good of computer forensics, describes a darker side. In discussing time stamps, “They are subject to alteration, falsification, and just plain error” (Treglia, 2012). Computer programs may not have the protocol needed to create an accurate timeline. People, to save themselves from prosecution, will attempt to falsify the records. An inexperienced tech may forget part of a procedure and corrupt the data. Whitcomb warns that forensic scientists need to be educated and have the proper experience to be considered an expert (Whitcomb, 2007). This reiterates the argument that inexperience can cause errors in the data. Only education and experience can make an expert, in a court of law. Without an expert the evidence does not have the same impact. However, that would be true with any evidence. If the court needs a doctor to present testimony about rare bacteria, a doctor just out of medical school will not be used. It will be the doctor with thirty years of research behind him that will be called. While these are all valid concerns, they are not exclusive to computer forensics. Search and seizure has been an issue from the start of United States, over a century before computers. Some people will lie about everything. All you need to do is watch a video of criminals caught in the act to prove that. Video and a half a dozen witnesses will not stop a criminal from stating that it wasn’t them. As for experience and procedure, all you need to do is to remember what it was like to start a new job. For two weeks you have the excuse that you are new to this job. The history of computer forensics shows that the need for it has been around for decades. Early DOS systems may not have had the protocols of today’s digital world, but it issued in the start of a new science. As with any science, there are advances causing the inevitable growth of the field. Databases with over a million bits of data have grown from looking at fingerprints by hand. Gathering computers and other data has become part of gathering any other data from a crime scene. As with any evidence, procedures are to be followed to maintain the integrity. Experience will come from routine and practice. As with any profession, training is included. This training will insure that errors are minimized. This limits the scope of someone contesting the admissibility of the evidence. So the argument of the reliability and admissibility of computer forensics is the same as any evidence presented in court. It all carries the same risks to tampering and human error. It is these risks that bring about regulations to prevent them and proper training to ensure that evidence is handled with the utmost care. References Allen, W.H. (2005, July, August). Computer forensics, basic training. Retrieved from http://see.xidian.edu.cn/hujianwei/papers/081-Computer%20Forensics.pdf Brown, C. L. T. (2005). Computer evidence: Collection and preservation. Boston: Course Technology. Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science. (1992). DNA technology in forensic science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. DNA Initiative. Retrieved from dna.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from fbi.gov. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from nij.gov. Treglia, S. (2012, March 28). Computer forensic advances raise complex issues. New York Law Journal. Retrieved from http://www.law.com. Whitcomb, C. M. (2007, November 11). The evolution of digital evidence in forensic science laboratories. The Police Chief. Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/. Read More