Legal Limitations of Digital Forensics - Case Study Example

Case Analysis Case Analysis Many disciplines are related to cyber security. However, digital forensics closely influences case laws. The regulatory processes and the ability of digital experts to produce the evidence in a court of law influence the growth and evolution of digital forensics. The conflict between privacy laws and the need to search and seize digital material affects most of the cases (Ami-Narh, 2008). The rulings of the Court have influenced the forensic collection, handling, analyzing and preservation of forensic evidence. Case 1: Daubert vs. the United States Supreme Court Introduction In June 28, 1993, the Unites States Supreme Court passed a landmark ruling that solved a significant contemporary issue (Gostin & Milbank Memorial Fund, 2002). The Daubert vs. Marrel Dow Pharmaceutical Inc. ruling resolved the debate on admitting evidence in the court. As a result, the Daubert ruling is one of the most consequential decisions about the role of forensic evidence in the judicial process. The Case The Daubert case involved a toxic tort case. The court heard that two boys, Jason Daubert and Erick Schuller were born with serious defects because of the negative effects of a drug made by Benedictin. The plaintiff believed that they had been affected because the mother had taken the anti-nausea drug Benedictin while she was pregnant. The two boys decided to sue the organization. The decision placed them among numerous people who were suing for damages. The case got into the public domain because of disputes over the introduction of expert testimony (Gostin & Milbank Memorial Fund, 2002). The ruling would not only affect the case but also determine how forensic evidence such as digital evidence would be allowed in the case. The Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court accepted the case due to the realization that it needed to set the standard for the admissibility of forensic evidence. The major issue was whether the adoption of Federal Rules of Evidence should get more prominence than the Frye standard that had played a significant role in the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the F.R.E should receive more weight than the Frye standard (Coleman, Swenson, Holloway, & Aulinskas, 1994). The rule shifted power from the Frye test and gave the judge powers of determining which evidence should apply in the case. The ruling implied that judges could determine the admissibility of scientific evidence as opposed to only determining the credibility of a witness. An evaluation of the ruling demonstrates that four criteria should apply when determining the admissibility of evidence. Firstly, the court should consider if the theory or technique has been tested and proved. Secondly, the court should consider if the theory or technique has been subjected to technical review. Thirdly, the court should evaluate the potential errors that may result from the application of the theory or technique. Fourthly, the court should determine if the theory or the technique in question has got in its scientific community. The 1999 Kumho Tire vs. Carmichael expanded the scope of the Daubert requirement to include technology expertise (Simon, 2010). The ruling established a precedent that determines the evidentiary application of scientific and technological evidence (Coleman, Swenson, Holloway, & Aulinskas, 1994). For example, the introduction of computer evidence must meet the four criteria established by the Supreme Court. Conclusion The Daubert ruling settled a significant debate about the role of expert testimony in judicial proceedings. In addition, the ruling is applicable in computer forensics. Consequently, the legal community should now focus on determining if the digital forensics industry is establishing the requisite standards that will meet the Daubert threshold. Case 2: Mapp vs. Ohio Introduction The United States of America courts would suppress the use of evidence obtained through illegal seizure. The principle applies to all forms of evidence including digital evidence as established in Mapp vs. Ohio 367 U.S 643(1961). The case extended an existing federal precedent to State courts. The Case In May 23, 1957, Cleveland police intended to search the home of Dollree Mapp. They believed that she was harboring a bombing suspect. Dollree refused to open the door before she saw a warrant. However, the police returned a few hours later and claimed that they had obtained a search warrant. However, they did not allow her to see the warrant. Although the police failed to find the bombing suspect, they found pornographic material and subsequently arrested her. In the first court case, she was found guilty for violating laws that prohibited the production or use of pornographic material in the state at that time. Dollree Mapp decided to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Cleveland police had violated her First Amendment right to exercise freedom of expression (McInnis, 2009). Losing her appeal of the Ohio Court ruling forced her to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted her case because it wanted to establish if her constitutional right to freedom of expression was violated. The implications of the Ruling The Supreme Court decided to ignore the question of whether or not she was guilty of possessing obscene material. Instead, it decided to focus on the freedom of expression. The ruling demonstrated that the Supreme Court believes that the prosecution of suspects should not undermine the freedom of expression. As a result, digital forensic experts should ensure that the process of identifying and gathering the digital evidence does not undermine the rights of a suspect (Ami-Narh, 2008). For instance, computer equipment or files are only obtainable when the police have a search warrant. However, the ruling raised many concerns over the application of the exclusionary principle. In addition, it set a high standard for the admission of forensic evidence. As a result, the digital forensic community should focus on ensuring that the evidence meets the required threshold. Conclusion The Mapp vs. Ohio Supreme Court ruling determined the management of digital and physical evidence. A Weeks vs. United States Supreme Court Decision in 1914 stated that the evidence received in an illegal manner should not get in a Federal court. Consequently, the Supreme Court decision in the Mapp case focused on whether that precedent applied to the states. The 6-3 ruling in favor of Mapp demonstrated that the Supreme Court believed that the evidence that both state and federal courts should not admit evidence whose source is illegal. As a result, digital evidence must be gathered within the established legal frameworks in order to be admitted into the case. The growing adoption of technology in both individual lives and the society are set to increase its application in court proceedings. As a result, the establishment of standards that guide the evidentiary application of forensic evidence is a significant measure. However, technology changes at a faster rate than the law. Consequently, there should be a sustained effort to ensure that the standards that have been established by the Supreme Court enhance rather than inhibiting the application of the rule of law. References Ami-Narh, J. T. (2008). Digital forensics and the legal system: A dilemma of our times. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=adf Coleman, H., Swenson, E., Holloway, D., & Aulinskas, T. (1994). DNA in the courtroom: A trial watchers guide. Seattle, Wash., USA: GeneLex Corp. Gostin, L. O., & Milbank Memorial Fund. (2002). Public health law and ethics: A reader. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press. McInnis, T. N. (2009). The evolution of the Fourth Amendment. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Simon, R. I. (2010). Study guide to forensic psychiatry: A companion to the American psychiatric publishing textbook of forensic psychiatry. Washington: Amer Psychiatric. Read More