Chapter 7: Admissibility of Digital Evidence

History and structure of the U.S. Legal System

- Before the federal system

o Each of the 13 colonies had its own govt., religion, and laws
o The colonies united over “taxation w/o rep.” by Britain
o To fight back, they created a congress and a union army, beginning
the idea of federal law
- Building a federal and state balance
o States wanted to keep their independence but also needed national
unity
o This tension (state vs. federal power) led to major conflicts like the
civil war
o The war wasn’t only about slavery – it was also about which system
(state or federal) would have ultimate authority

The U.S. Constitution (1787)

- Serves as the foundation of all the U.S. law

- Has been amended 27 times
- The bill of rights protects individual freedoms
- Defines relationship between:
o Federal govt. <> States <> Citizens

In short: congress writes, President signs/vetoes, Courts interpret

- Legislative: congress (article 1) = makes the laws

- Executive: president (article 2) = enforces laws
- Judicial: courts (article 3) = interprets laws

Overview of the U.S. Court System

- Why the court system matters

o The U.S. has two main court systems: federal and state (county)
courts
o Understand the structure helps explain:
 Why some cases go to federal court
 Why others stay in state or county court
- Jurisdiction
o Legal authority to hear a case
o A case might move from state to federal court if:
 It involves constitutional issues or
  Multiple states are affected
o Sometimes, multiple states coordinate if the crime crosses borders
 They often choose the state with tougher laws or better
jurisdiction
- Court structure
o All court systems share the same basic idea:
o Trial courts: where the case starts
o Appeals courts: review if mistakes were made
o Supreme court: final decision-maker
o Judge: ensures fairness, keeps trail lawful
o Jury: listens to evidence, decides facts (guilty or not guilty)
o Prosecution: must prove guilt
- Appeals courts (no jury here)
o Anyone convicted has the right to appeal
o Appeals don’t retry the case, they review for legal mistakes
o If an error is found, the case may be sent back for a new trial
o Typically, 3 judges (always an odd number) make the decision
- Federal courts (article 3 courts)
o Created by U.S. constitution
o Main branches:
 District: 94 total; trial-level courts
 Appeal: 13 circuits reviewing district court decisions
 Supreme court: final authority on constitutional matters
o Special federal courts:
 Court of claims and court of international trade (handle specific
cases)
- Other federal courts (created by congress)
o Magistrate courts
o Bankruptcy courts
o Military appeals court
o Tax court
o Veterans’ appeals court
- The U.S. Supreme court
o 9 justices (1 is the chief)
o Appointed by pres., confirmed by senate
o Lifetime appts.
o Landmark case: Marbury vs. Madison (judicial review)
o Handles cases involving:
 Constitution
  Federal laws and treaties
 Disputes between states or citizens of different states
- US district courts
o Handle civil and criminal cases
o Federal cases often involve:
 Kidnapping, intellectual property, interstate crimes, etc.
- State courts
o Each state runs its own court system, but most follow the same
pattern
 Trial courts > intermediate appellate courts > state supreme
court
- Trial courts of limited jurisdiction
o Handle specific types of cases:
 Family court: divorce, custody, support
 Probate court: wills and estates
 Traffic court: speeding, DUIs
 Juvenile court: crimes by minors
 Small claims court: low-value disputes
 Municipal court: local crimes (trespassing, vandalism, etc.)

Summary

o US has dual legal system

o Each system has 3 main levels
o Jurisdiction determines where a case belongs
o Appeals are about reviewing fairness, not retrying guilt
o Supreme court ensures all laws follow the constitution

Trial process in court room

1. Jury selection: jurors are chosen to ensure fairness and impartiality

2. Oath and instructions: jury swears an oath; judge explains trail rules
and expectations
3. Opening statements: each side (prosecution/plaintiff and defense)
outlines what they intend to prove
4. Witness testimony and evidence: witnesses testify; physical and digital
evidence is presented
5. Closing arguments: both sides summarize their key points before the
jury deliberates
6. Jury instructions: judge explains the laws the jury must apply when
making a decision
 7. Jury deliberation: jury discusses privately to reach a decision
8. Verdict: jury delivers a decision – guilty/not (criminal) or liable/not
(civil)
9. Sentencing: if guilty, the judge determines the punishment (criminal
only)

Difference between criminal and civil cases

- Criminal Trial
o Who brings the case: govt (prosecutor)
o Purpose: punish wrongdoing
o Standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt
o Burden of proof: on the prosecution
o Outcome: guilty/not
o Penalties: prison, fines, probation
o Depositions: rare
- Civil Trial
o Who brings the case: private individual or organization (plaintiff)
o Purpose: resolve disputes/compensation
o Standard of proof: preponderance of evidence
o Burden of proof: starts with the plaintiff, may shift to defense
o Outcome: liable/not
o Penalties: monetary damages or injunctions
o Depositions: common (part of discovery process)

Why this matters for digital evidence examiner

- As a forensic examiner, your evidence may be presented:

o In criminal court (proving guilt)
o In civil court (supporting damages or liability)
- You may testify as an expert witness, so understanding the process
helps you:
o Communicate effectively with lawyers and juries
o Handle cross-examination confidently
o Protect the integrity of your forensic findings

Evidence admissibility and constitutional law

- Admissibility of evidence
o The judge’s role:
 The judge determines whether evidence presented in court is
legally admissible
  Evidence includes documents. Physical items, and witness
testimony
 In digital evidence, explain in simple terms
- Challenges with digital evidence
o Judges are often trained in traditional law, not technology
o May not understand things, so must educate the court
- The jury factor
o Not all are not familiar with digital evidence
o Clear, visual explanations help them understand
- Constitutional foundations
o Constitution sets the framework for rights and justice
o Supreme court interprets how these rights apply
- The 1st amendment
o Protects:
 Freedom of speech, press, religion, assemble and petition
o In digital contexts, it raises complex modern issues:
 Online speech and cyberbullying
 Social media posts and harassment laws
 Distinguishing protected opinion from harmful or inciting speech

First and fourth amendments in digital age

- 1st amendment and the internet

o The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech and expression but
how that applies to the internet and student conduct online
continues to evolve
 Landmark case: Tinker v. Des Moines
 Schools cannot suppress student expression unless it
substantially disrupts the learning environment
 Layshock v. Hermitage school district
 Schools cannot punish off-campus online speech unless it
causes real disruption
 Doninger v. Niehoff
 Free speech is protected - but not when it interferes with school
operations or violates conduct policies
- 4 amendment and digital forensics
th

o It protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and

requires probable cause for warrants
 Weeks v. US
  Introduced exclusionary rule – illegally obtained evidence cannot
be used in court
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
o If the initial evidence is gathered illegally, all subsequent evidence
derived from it is also inadmissible
 Katz v. US
 Wiretapping requires a warrant
 The expectation of privacy applies to people, not places
 O’Connor v. Ortega
 Employers must clearly notify employees before monitoring
digital activity

Search warrants in digital investigations

- Warrant must specify who, where, and what is to be searched or seized

- Probable cause must show that:
o A crime was committed
o Evidence likely exists in that specific location
 US v. Warshak
 Expectation of privacy in stored emails
 Good faith expectation allows evidence to be used in court, even
if it was obtained through a technical or unconstitutional error,
provided that law enforcement officers were acting on a
reasonable, good faith belief that their actions were lawful
 US v. Ziegler
 Warrants apply to law enforcement, not private entities
 BALCO MLB case
 Warrants for electronic data must remain narrow and specific

Summary

- 1st amendment: protects digital expression – but not disruption,

obscenity, or threats
- 4th amendment: protects digital privacy – warrants and probable cause
are essential
- Case law continues to define how these rights apply to technology,
social media, ad digital forensics
- Forensic examiners must understand constitutional limits before
collecting, analyzing, or presenting evidence

When can law enforcement search without a warrant?

 - Exceptions balance public safety, law enforcement needs, and
individual privacy rights
- They can conduct a search w/o a warrant if waiting would risk:
o Physical harm to someone
o Destruction of evidence
o Escape of a suspect
 US vs. McConney
 If investigators believe a suspect might destroy data remotely, they
may seize devices immediately under this exception – but must
later justify the urgency

Consent searches

- Is a person voluntarily consents to a search, no warrant is needed

- Consent must be:
o Given by someone with authority over the area or device
o Voluntary, no coerced
o Given by someone of sound mind and sufficient understanding
- Consent can be limited in scope (only allowing certain folders or drives
to be searched)

Plain view doctrine

- Officers can seize evidence w/o a warrant if it’s:

o In plain view
o Officer is lawfully present
o Item’s illegality is immediately apparent
 Horton v. California
 Inadvertent discovery isn’t required – as long as all three conditions
are met, evidence in plain view can be seized
 Digital challenge: digital isn’t in plain view
 US vs. Carey
 A warrant for drugs doesn’t automatically cover other crimes
discovered on the same computer
 US vs. Walser
 If new evidence appears, pause and get a new warrant – this
preserves admissibility
 US vs. Mann
 Context matters – if new evidence is closely related to the original
investigation, it may still be admissible

Warrantless searches of mobile devices

  People vs. Diaz
 Search of a phone after arrest is lawful, citing it as incident to arrest
 Riley vs. California
 Reversed the principle, searching phones w/o a warrant is
unconstitutional

Summary

- Judges decide what evidence is admissible; digital evidence needs

careful explanation
- Forensic experts must bridge the gap between tech and law
- Constitution and its amendments guide how digital rights and
freedoms are interpreted
- Understanding these principles helps forensic examiners present
evidence ethically and effectively in court

Important

- 1st amendment: protects digital expression, not disruption, obscenity,

or threats
- 4th amendment: protects digital privacy (warrants and probable cause
are essential)
- Case law continues to define how these rights apply to tech, social
media, and digital forensics
- Forensic examiners must understand constitutional limits before
collecting, analyzing, or presenting evidence

Summary

- Judges decide what is admissible; digital evidence needs careful

explanation
- Forensic experts must bridge the gap between tech and law
- The constitution and its amendments guide how digital rights and
freedoms are interpreted
- Understanding these principles helps forensic examiners present
evidence ethically and effectively in court

GPS tracking and 4th amendment

- The use of GPS tracking devices by law enforcement has grown rapidly
for surveillance and criminal investigations
- Their legality (w/o a warrant too) has been a matter of significant
judicial debate
 - Courts have to balance law enforcement efficiency against citizens’
expectation of privacy in the digital age

Yasir Afifi and the Orion Guardian ST820

- Man removed a tracker form his car, FBI came and demanded it back,
circuit court said that attaching it did not require a warrant b/c it didn’t
qualify as protected curtilage
- Curtilage: area immediately surrounding a home that enjoys privacy
protections similar to the home itself

Dunn Test (US vs. Dunn)

- Supreme court established 4 factors to determine whether an area is

within the protected curtilage:
o Proximity of the area to the home
o Whether it is enclosed
o Nature of its use
o Steps taken by the resident to shield the area from public view

US vs. Knotts

- Police placed a radio transmitter (beeper) inside a container to track

suspect
- Supreme court upheld conviction, ruling that beeper monitoring was
not a “search”
- Decision laid on the groundwork for limited GOS tracking, but it applied
only to short-term monitoring on public roads not constant surveillance

US vs. Mclver

- Undercarriage of a vehicle was deemed part of its exterior, not private

property

Broader legal and ethical implications

- GPS tracking = “search” and “seizure” under the 4 th amendment

- Any GPS installation on vehicles now requires a valid warrant, unless
exigent circumstances apply

Forensic Examiner’s Takeaway

- Always verify the validity of warrants and their time limits before
installing or using surveillance tools
- Document how and where devices were placed – even a day late can
invalidate evidence
 - Understand curtilage boundaries and reasonable privacy expectations
- Be mindful of evolving digital-era interpretations of privacy – what was
once “public” may no longer be clear-cut
- Consult legal counsel for GPS

5th amendment and digital forensics

- What it protects
o Self-incrimination
o You cannot be forced to testify against yourself
o You cannot be punished without fair legal procedures
- Legal definitions
o Double jeopardy: a person cannot be tried twice for the dame
offense
o Forensic relevance: investigators must ensure that all evidence is
gathered correctly before trail, since reopening a case later for
the same offense is unconstitutional
- Why it matters in computer forensics
o Digital cases often involve multiple devices and data sources
o Missing evidence could result in the case being dismissed or
ruled incomplete

Landmark case: Miranda vs. Arizona

- Confession was inadmissible because he wasn’t informed of his rights

- The Miranda Rights were established

Digital example: In re Boucher

- Border agents found suspected illegal images in a laptop

- Files were encrypted and password protected
- Court ruled
o He cannot be forced to reveal his password (5 th)
o Can be required to unlock his laptop using biometrics
- Key point:
o Knowledge-based access (passwords, pins, etc.) = protected
speech
o Biometric access (fingerprint, face ID, etc.) = not protected

Real world implications

- Investigators must respect constitutional rights during digital evidence

collection
 - Forcing decryption or password disclosure = violation of self-
incrimination
- Using forensic tools to extract data without compelling the suspect is
legal safer

6th amendment

- Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury to be informed of

the charges, to confront witnesses, to obtain witnesses in their favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for defense

Melendez-Diaz vs. MA

- Lab results were submitted as written reports, not live testimony

- Violated the defendant’s 6th amendment right to confront witnesses

Relevance to computer forensics

- Investigators may be required to appear in court to:

o Explain hoe digital evidence was obtained
o Validate tools and methods used
o Defend findings under cross-examination

Practical implications

- Reports and lab results are not self-explanatory evidence – they must
be backed by expert testimony
- Investigators should maintain:
o Detailed chain of custody
o Transparent documentation of methods
o Confidence in explaining procedures in simple, clear language
- Key takeaway
o 6th amendment ensures fairness and accountability in trials. For
computer forensic investigators, this means you are not just a
technician – you are also a potential witness, responsible for
defending the integrity of you digital evidence in court

Rules for evidence admissibility

- Admissibility of digital evidence remains a major legal challenge

- Traditional forensic principles were designed for physical evidence
- Digital evidence differs – it exists in dynamic, constantly changing
systems

Volatile nature of digital evidence

 - Running computer has critical data in RAM
- While RAM is being collected, its contents keep changing
- This makes proving that evidence is unchanged and reliable difficult

Challenges with mobile devices

- Seized cellphones are typically still powered on

- System changes continue while in custody
- These ongoing modifications make evidence easier to challenge in
court

Expanding sources of evidence

- Courts now deal with diverse digital evidence

- Each source requires specialized forensic expertise
- Finding experts across multiple domains is increasing problematic

Legal framework for admissibility

- Courts rely on
o Case law and accepted scientific practices
o Federal rules of evidence
- Key factors for admissibility
o Lawful seizure and collection
o Proper handling and preservation
o Accurate documentation and chain of custody

Frye test for evidence admissibility

- Jaems Frye was tried for 2nd-degree murder

- Problem: a systolic blood pressure test
- Court decision:
o The test was not widely accepted by the scientific community,
so it was ruled inadmissible
o Established “general acceptance: standard – scientific evidence
mut be generally accepted in this field
- Courts should admit expert testimony only it:
o It is based on a well-recognized scientific principle
o The method or principle is sufficiently established and not
experimental
- Key idea: evidence must come from demonstrable, accepted science –
not unproven theories

Daubert test for evidence admissibility

 - Parents sued over birth defects allegedly caused by the drug Bendectin
- Dispute; plaintiffs used animal testing data not generally accepted by
scientists
- Court ruling:
o Supreme court ruled that the Frye standard no longer applied
after the federal rules of evidence were enacted in 1975
o Introduced the daubert standard – focusing on scientific validity
and reliability, not just general acceptance

Mini Quiz

1. B
2. C
3. C
4. B
5. A
6. C
7. B
8. C
9. B
10. B
11. B
12. B
13. C
14. B
15. B
16. B