         
To
add your name to the SATI Mailing List,
click here
|
|
SATI e-News:
December 11, 2002
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
APRI
Offers Guidance on Ensuring Admissibility
of Digital Photo Evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
As more law enforcement agencies and
forensic examiner programs convert to digital cameras in
evidence collection, the reliability of digital photography has
come under intensive scrutiny. While digital photography has
numerous benefits, including instant images, crisp detail and
decreased cost, defense attorneys have attacked the medium as
being easily manipulated and thus unreliable. In the absence of
solid precedents, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI)
weighed in and offered guidance on this issue in their recent
newsletter.
In the article, APRI staff attorney, Christina Shaw, J.D.
reviews the few court precedents, including the Georgia Supreme
Court decision in Almond v. State, which found that the
procedure for admitting digital pictures was neither different
nor heightened over the procedure for admitting traditional
photos.
The APRI article also examines admissibility rulings in cases of
other forms of digital evidence, such as computer-generated
charts and graphs and enhanced digital fingerprints. The
Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that computer-generated
evidence is generated under certain conditions: 1) the computer
is functioning properly; 2) the input and underlying equations
are sufficiently complete and accurate; and 3) the appropriate
community of scientists generally accepts the program. Their
three-point test has been adopted by at least two other states,
according to Shaw.
Shaw offers the following guidance to investigators and
prosecutors to enhance the admissibility of digital technology:
1) Adopt a protocol or operating procedure for the handling of
all image evidence--whether it is digital, photographic or
video--to ensure consistent standards; 2) Always preserve the
original image in its original format by saving the image on a
hard drive, a CD or with image security software; and 3) Always
save enhancements of an image to a separate file, instead of
replacing the original document; and 4) Establish a reliable
chain of custody for handling all image evidence.
Finally, Shaw underscores the need for the prosecutor to
understand how his or her jurisdiction deals with issues of
authentication, requirements for an "original" and the
reliability of digital images, in order to craft the most
effective argument for admitting digital photographs.
Source:
"Admissibility of Digital Photographic Evidence: Should It Be
Any Different Than Traditional Photography?," by
Christina Shaw, J.D., published in the Newsletter of the
American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for
Prosecution of Child Abuse," Update, Vol. 15, November 10, 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Other Articles in This Issue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
