In short, digital evidence must be planned for and plays a role at each stage in the investigation/prosecution process, which we describe further below. A growing backlog prevents training opportunities since classes would take examiners out of the workplace, and a backlog can undermine requests to replace inadequate, antiquated, or under-funded technology and licenses due to budget constraints of units perceived to be performing slowly. Contributing to the backlog is the lack of personnel trained in digital evidence extraction. For example: training can improve the preservation of evidence, such as educating patrol officers on the necessity of a Faraday bag to isolate electronic devices.ĭepartments face large digital evidence backlogs, limited equipment, and potential turnover of examiners. Regional models and other forms of collaboration can help, provided officers know where to turn for help.Īdvanced digital evidence training is not yet part of the core curriculum for police academies, yet officers of all levels of experience may have contact with digital evidence that is sufficient to affect the resolution of the case. Funding these efforts can involve a complicated mix of local, state and federal budgets, and this can be particularly challenging for smaller departments.
Demonstrating cost effective return on investment is crucial to securing command staff buy in. Performing digital forensics can be an expensive proposition involving licenses, equipment and significant personnel costs.
There are a number of explanations for this, including the rapid changes and proliferation of digital devices, budgetary limitations, and lack of proper training opportunities. Many departments are behind the curve in handling digital evidence.
Home | Investigators | Digital Evidence | Understanding Digital Evidence Understanding Digital Evidence
0 kommentar(er)
