Dear monroe22-ga;
Hello again. I?m glad to see you come back and as always I am pleased
to have an opportunity to answer your interesting question because, as
it turns out, it happens to be right up my alley.
As a two-decade member of the law enforcement community who has both
survived the film age and lived on to see the digital age, I can tell
you with absolute certainty that, in my jurisdiction at least (and
many others that I am aware of), digital images are indeed admissible
in court. In my current position I am an evidence technician in charge
of collecting, processing, inventorying and preparing evidentiary
items for cases in my jurisdiction. I receive digital images almost
daily as a part of my job in a variety of formats: DVD, CD, memory
sticks, videotapes, etc. As for your question ?Are digital images ever
allowed as evidence in a court of law??, in my experience, they are
ALWAYS allowed as evidence in a court of law and have never been
challenged locally though I am aware of some unsuccessful challenges
elsewhere. This may differ from one area to another, but in response
to your question ?Are digital images EVER allowed as evidence in a
court of law??, the answer is, without hesitation, ?Yes, absolutely?.
To address your second question, ?Is it possible to prove that any
photographic image, digital or conventional silver halide, presented
as evidence in a court of law, has NOT been altered??, one must
understand the means by which evidence is collected and stored in
order to protect its integrity.
First, an investigator or crime scene technician takes the photos.
Then the ORIGINAL film (or digital storage medium of some other kind)
is the removed and placed in a sealed container. A tamper-proof
evidence tape is placed over the opening. This sensitive tape is
designed so that the adhesive will not allow the tape to come off
without tearing the tape. The person who took the photos and one or
more other individuals who witness the sealing of the container then
initials the tape. This seal will never be broken again. Henceforth,
each time the evidentiary items are removed from this sealed package
it will be done through a new opening and resealed in this same manner
to establish a record of who and when the item was accessed. The
container is then transported to a storage location where an evidence
technician signs for the items and records them in a database. The
evidence technician does not open, touch or ever even sees the item
inside. At some point an investigator will return to retrieve the
container from the evidence technician by signing a chain-of-custody
log. He will open the package by making a NEW opening with a razor or
scissors, careful not to break the original seal. This is done in
front of one or more witnesses. He will then remove the original
medium and using a computer or conventional film processing lab,
transfer the images to an entirely different viewable source like
paper blowups, videotape, CD or DVD. The original medium is then
resealed in the same container it was taken out of and NEW evidence
tape is place over the NEW opening and initialed. The item is then
returned, sealed, to the evidence technician for storage. In fact, it
is not uncommon for the package containing the original medium to
never be opened again throughout the entire trial and appeal process
(or ever again for that matter). All processes, viewing and
manipulation (like enlargements, etc) are done from this copy and
NEVER EVER from the master medium. The purpose for this is so that if
a challenge ever arises about the integrity of the photos, the master
can be subpoenaed and examined by independent authorities as proof
that the photos depict the actual scene.
This process where many logs, documentations and checks and balances
are common practice and has been upheld by the Appellate Courts in
?State of Washington v. Eric Hayden, 1995?, ?State of California v.
Phillip Lee Jackson, 1995? and in particular ?Almond v. State of
Georgia? (in which the Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court
decision stating the procedure for admitting digital pictures was
neither different than nor heightened over the procedure for admitting
traditional photos) just to name a few.
Finally, it is not incumbent upon the State (prosecution, police, etc)
to PROVE the digital images are authentic. What they must do however
is to be prepared and able to CONFIRM that the images being presented
as evidence did in fact come from the original source and that the
images do depict the scene in exactly the same manner as the original
medium without alteration, contamination or a break in the chain of
custody of any kind should the challenge ever be raised. The courts,
rules of criminal procedure, and evidentiary policy have repeatedly
confirmed that this is enough to ?prove? (as you put it) that the
images are indeed authentic. The authenticity and admissibility of
digital photos (or anything else for that matter) as evidence is
usually hashed out in pretrial hearings called ?discovery hearings?
which are designed to insure that the actual trial focuses on the acts
of defendant and not the integrity of the various pieces of evidence.
Here are some interesting and informative articles on the subject:
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS IN COURT
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/admissibilityofdigital.html
ADMISSIBILITY OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE: SHOULD IT BE ANY
DIFFERENT THAN TRADITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY?
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_15_number_10_2002.html
Below you will find that I have carefully defined my search strategy
for you in the event that you need to search for more information. By
following the same type of searches that I did you may be able to
enhance the research I have provided even further. I hope you find
that that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any
questions about my research please post a clarification request prior
to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating and your final
comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near
future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
Defined above
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINES USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
The Admissibility of Digital Photographs in Court
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=The+Admissibility+of+Digital+Photographs+in+Court&btnG=Google+Search |
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
19 Apr 2004 06:55 PDT
What if the digital image submitted originally had been previously
altered prior to submission to authorities?
In other words, fake evidence that could be treated with care and respect?
-----------------------------------------------------
I personally handle hundreds of thousands of dollar worth of
merchandise and drugs each year in the course of my job. It is
entirely possibly, hypothetically speaking, that evidence could be
manufactured prior to it's delivery to me (the evidence technician).
But let me say this, first, I have never and will never take, alter,
manufacture or produce evidence in any case regardless of the
circumstances. There is nothing particularly significant about that
high standard of personal integrity in my field. Most law enforcement
professionals share my view. I mention it only to show that there are
indeed stop-gaps, such a my staff, who will quickly "blow the whistle"
if necessary - and nothing, or no one, can sway our determination to
do that regardless of who you are, how much we like you otherwise, are
or how long we might have known you. As officers of the law and of the
court, this is OUR justice system. A system of fairness to which we
are whole-heartedly devoted no matter which side of the law the issue
happens to be on.
I cannot insist that it is not possible for this type of tampering to
occur at some point before it is inventoried. But what I can say is
that twice in my 23 year career I have encountered a situation where
someone within the organization tapered with evidence, not to alter
evidence in the case, but for their own gain. In both cases the person
was promptly terminated, arrested and prosecuted based on evidence
that my division discovered as a result of examining the evidence in
question. Once a trusted collegue crosses the line and violates both
the law and the trust of his office, he BECOMES, for all intents and
purposes, a criminal himself. I (and most others I know) will not
hesistate to expose them and send them directly to prison - which is
exactly what happened in both these cases.
In answer to your question, yes, a digital image could be altered
prior to arrival? Digital forensics is a relatively new science and
there have been some advances toward determining whether or not an
image has been altered. This is done using enhancements, shadow
placements, inconsistencies such a measurements and relation to
objects and so forth. Simply put, the forensic examiner will look for
things that do not belong such as brush strokes, erase marks,
overlays, and things that might appear in a photograph which are not
physicially possible or plausible. Some altered photos however are
just plain good, as evidenced by many recent tabloid and magaine
debates in recent times where images were altered to reflect a
situation which simply did not occur in real life. In these instances,
using today's technological methods, it may in fact be impossible to
determine or detect.
Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
|
,
0 Comments
)