14 Sedona Principles

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

In the past, collecting digital evidence law enforcement was naïve, they would grab and go. This was later deemed not to

The gathering, protection and safeguarding of evidence is a crucial facet of evidence integrity, without accurate adherence to these processes, vital evidence that could possibly have significant influence on a court case could be deemed inadmissible. Therefore identifies the importance in establishing policy and procedure for law enforcement agencies in the identification, collection, and storage of evidence. Objects that constitute fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of the crime or are contraband may be introduced in evidence and exhibited to the jury if it is proven that such objects offered as evidence relate to the crime charged (Garland, 2015, p. 417). Below is a procedure for handling physical evidence for presentation

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for the

Since then, many states have adopted laws forbidding the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, and more than half have now adopted some form of the Weeks rule. This development is the result of the growing understanding that only the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence provides the necessary incentive to state officials to refrain from unreasonable searches and seizures; other remedies are simply ineffective at securing

Limitations of criminal law and due process are present in almost all parts of the statutory law. One major component of these limitations is what is known as “the Statute of Limitations,” or a statute which limits the time a crime is allowed to be prosecuted by. This is an essential part of the criminal justice system today, and has been for centuries. With these statutes, citizens have more of their rights protected and the government power is put into check. The Statute of Limitations, despite the limitations and barriers it puts on the prosecutorial team or the plaintiffs, is beneficial to American citizens in many forms. The Statute of Limitations can hinder the criminal justice system in some aspects, but is a beneficial tool which continues to protect citizens from an overbearing government and justice system. Because of this, the American criminal justice system has become what it is today and allows for protection of rights which are considered undeniable. Through the examination and analyzation of both historical and modern aspects of the American criminal law, the evidence proves the Statute of Limitations is an essential part of the criminal justice system, for both the government and the citizens themselves.

Defense counsel has asked this Court to compel the government to disclose the Forensic Peer Review dated August 5, 2014, from the government’s digital evidence file. Defense counsel asserts that the requested document is discoverable under Brady because the document will provide impeachment evidence of the test results obtained by Digital evidence examiner, Gregory Norman (“Norman”) using the Lantern v4 tool. To support its’ contention, defense counsel notes that there is no distinction between exculpatory and impeachment evidence for purposes of Brady disclosure requirements. See Bagley, 473 U.S. 667; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433 (citing there is no “difference between exculpatory and impeachment evidence” when it comes to the prosecutor's duty

For most of the past century the crime of conspiracy has generated a good deal of controversy before the Supreme Court. Whether with issues concerning broadening a hearsay exception based on a purported conspiracy to conceal as part of an initial agreement, or with the limits of proof as to individual membership in a conspiracy, the Justices consistently looked with care at the reach of the crime.

The issue within this paper focuses on the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable doubt. The two appear similar in many ways as both require the best judgment of the law enforcement personnel. But they are in fact different, and all law enforcement must know the difference in order for the evidence to be admissible in court. Law enforcement is obligated to follow the protocols and procedures outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court; if law enforcement does not follow the laws, perpetrators could be released and free to commit more crimes. Proving probable cause and reasonable suspicion are imperative to avoid violating the rights of citizens.

In order to present admissible and acceptable evidence in front of the court they must be properly gathered. On the other hand sometimes it’s not possible and the evidence that you have discovered to create an alert may become “the fruit of the poisonous tree.” In the case of United States v. Juan M. Orta the fruit is the illegal substance that the office finds. Unfortunately it may become inadmissible at a certain point if it has been obtained as a result of and illegal search were in this case the violation of the Fourth Amendment becomes the source of the poisonous tree in this case (Scott, 2008,2012). In this research paper I intent to inform the reader about the case-law and those in relation

Technology is the persistent application of information in the design, production and use of goods and services, and in the organization of human activities. Criminal Justice is the system of law enforcement, involving police, lawyers, courts, and corrections, used for all phases of criminal procedures and penalty. As technology is used in the organization of human activities and criminal justice deals with the criminal aspects of humans it constantly unites these two things. As technology advances, so will it is use in the field of criminal justice. These advancements are necessary to help keep up with the growing and evolving world, but it is also necessary to make sure that this type of technology does not begin to infringe on a person’s individual civil liberties.

Kerr overlooks important considerations in regard to the doctrine in an age where technology advances rapidly and so much of our information is given to third parties. What undergirds his argument is the need to maintain the balance between privacy and security. Law enforcement officers need to be able to conduct their investigation to catch savvy criminals while on the other hand, potential abuses by these officers on innocent persons exists in ancillary protections rooted in other principles. When viewed through a lens in which the focus is preventing abuse, few would disagree with him. However, the chief concern among critics of the doctrine in its current iteration is not the potential for harassment from law enforcement when they are investigating potential criminal activity, but how the doctrine greatly undermines privacy when, first, electronic data encompasses a great deal of the information people generate on a daily basis, and second, we convey this electronic information to third parties with the same

In April 2011, GAO, Government Accountability Office, reported that backlogs in the forensic analysis of digital evidence can delay or hinder online child pornography investigations. Among factors that federal law enforcement officials cited as limiting investigations and prosecutions were variations in the steps that agencies believe enhance the integrity of forensic analysis of digital evidence. In some cases, these steps may increase the time it takes to analyze evidence and add to backlogs and delays. (GAO High Risk & Other Major Government Challenges Balancing Fighting Crime Versus Terrorism)

Over the years, forensics have played an integral role in solving crimes of all variety. Technological advances have made life easier for society as whole including those in the field of forensics. Digital forensics utilizes the advances in technology such emails, phones, social media, and other ways digital information could be shared in order to help crimes. People have grown so accustomed to phones, tablets, and computers that they often forgot these kinds of technology were not always around to use. The field of forensics has wisely grown with the advances in technology. Crimes have employed forensics to solve crimes for decades, but now with technology more information is available than ever to help assist in crime solving. Technology makes communication a lot easier and allows to talk people from all walks of life. The advances in technology have also allowed business to grow nationwide and worldwide with the ease of emails and phone calls.

Having experienced and witnessed a lengthy 12-year civil litigation in another country’s legal, I was skeptical about divulging into any more litigations, whether mock or real. My knowledge of civil litigations prior to the course was limited to those involving contracts, industrial and employee disagreements, acquisitions and more where a plaintiff usually seeks restoration of rights in terms of position or monetary compensation. Due to my earlier experience, I knew that discovery meant an excruciating pre-trial phase of litigations where parties request access to virtually any documents or testimonials which are considered reasonable in leading them to the “discovery of admissible evidence”. What was new to me was “Electronic discovery