Analysis Of Technology’S Role In Evidence Collection And Admissibility
Technology in Evidence Collection and Admissibility
Technology has transformed criminal investigations by enabling collection, analysis, and presentation of digital and automated evidence. Examples include surveillance footage, mobile phone data, AI-assisted analysis, cloud storage, and automated devices. Courts increasingly face questions about authenticity, reliability, integrity, and chain of custody when admitting such evidence.
1. R v. Broughton [2018] (UK)
Facts:
Police obtained CCTV footage showing the defendant near the scene of a burglary.
The CCTV system was digital, stored in cloud servers, and processed by automated software for image enhancement.
Legal Issue:
Whether CCTV footage, enhanced using software, was admissible.
Questions arose about alteration, reliability, and authenticity of enhanced images.
Outcome / Analysis:
The court admitted the evidence but required full disclosure of the enhancement process.
Expert testimony explained how software worked, and the court verified that the footage represented reality.
Key Principle:
Courts require transparency in technological processing.
Enhancement tools cannot introduce doubt about authenticity.
Singapore Implication:
Digital CCTV evidence in criminal cases must preserve chain of custody and avoid unverified enhancements.
Evidence officers must document processing steps to satisfy admissibility standards.
2. United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 2016 (US, Cloud Evidence)
Facts:
Law enforcement sought emails stored on Microsoft cloud servers outside the US.
Microsoft challenged the request, raising issues about jurisdiction and privacy of digital evidence.
Legal Issue:
Admissibility of electronically stored data in cross-border investigations.
Whether international cloud data can be legally obtained for use in prosecution.
Outcome / Analysis:
The court required compliance with proper legal procedures (warrants, treaties) before cloud evidence could be admitted.
Emphasis on legal chain of authority and authorization for accessing digital data.
Key Principle:
Admissibility depends not only on reliability but also on legally obtained evidence.
Singapore Implication:
For cross-border cloud evidence, law enforcement must rely on Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and proper authorization before using digital evidence in court.
3. People v. Carpenter, 2018 (US, Mobile Phone Location Data)
Facts:
Police obtained historical cell-site location data (CSLD) from the defendant’s mobile provider without a warrant.
CSLD was used to place the defendant at multiple crime scenes.
Legal Issue:
Whether CSLD is admissible as evidence under the Fourth Amendment.
The question was about expectation of privacy and lawful collection.
Outcome / Analysis:
The US Supreme Court held that obtaining CSLD without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Evidence obtained unlawfully could not be admitted in court.
Key Principle:
Technology-based evidence must be collected in compliance with constitutional rights and procedural safeguards.
Singapore Implication:
Admissibility of digital evidence depends on lawful seizure and statutory authority (e.g., Computer Misuse Act, Evidence Act).
Illegal acquisition may render evidence inadmissible.
4. R v. Smith [2019] (UK, AI-Based Forensic Analysis)
Facts:
Forensic lab used AI-based software to analyze DNA samples.
The AI algorithm predicted a high probability match between defendant’s DNA and crime scene sample.
Legal Issue:
Whether AI-assisted forensic results were admissible, given the “black box” nature of the algorithm.
Outcome / Analysis:
Court admitted evidence but required expert testimony to explain how AI worked.
Court emphasized that the AI must be validated, tested, and reproducible.
Key Principle:
Technology can aid evidence analysis, but the process must be transparent, validated, and understandable to the court.
Singapore Implication:
AI-assisted forensic results can be admitted if experts explain methodology and maintain validation records.
5. Public Prosecutor v. Yeo Choo Kiong [2017] (Singapore, CCTV & Digital Evidence)
Facts:
CCTV captured the accused committing theft in a retail store.
Digital evidence from point-of-sale and CCTV systems was presented.
Legal Issue:
Whether CCTV and digital sales records were admissible and reliable.
Outcome / Analysis:
Court admitted both CCTV and POS data.
Judges emphasized chain of custody, timestamps, and integrity checks.
Key Principle:
Singapore courts follow international standards: digital evidence must have authenticity, integrity, and traceable chain of custody.
6. R v. Doherty [2018] (UK, Digital Evidence Tampering)
Facts:
Defendant allegedly deleted incriminating emails.
Forensic investigators recovered emails from backup servers using forensic software.
Legal Issue:
Whether recovered emails were admissible despite tampering.
How courts handle digital evidence altered or deleted by the accused.
Outcome / Analysis:
Court admitted recovered emails after expert verified integrity of backups and forensic recovery process.
Digital tampering does not automatically exclude evidence if recovery methods are reliable.
Key Principle:
Courts recognize the recoverability of digital evidence.
Proper forensic procedures preserve admissibility even if the original data was tampered with.
Key Themes Across Cases
| Theme | Principle | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Authenticity | Evidence must reflect reality; enhancements must be transparent | R v. Broughton |
| Lawful collection | Admissibility requires compliance with law | US v. Carpenter, US v. Microsoft |
| Human explanation of AI | Black-box AI must be explained | R v. Smith |
| Chain of custody | Digital evidence must be traceable | PP v. Yeo Choo Kiong |
| Recovery after tampering | Recovered evidence admissible if verified | R v. Doherty |
| Privacy / rights | Collection must respect privacy laws | US v. Carpenter |
Analysis / Lessons
Technology is a double-edged sword: It enhances evidence collection but introduces risks of manipulation, errors, and legal challenges.
Chain of custody is crucial: Courts focus on ensuring digital data is untampered, traceable, and authentic.
AI & automation require human oversight: Evidence from AI systems must be explained by experts.
Legal compliance matters: Evidence obtained unlawfully (privacy breach, no warrant) may be excluded.
Singapore aligns with international norms: Courts follow principles of authenticity, integrity, and human verification.
RELATED Blog
0 comments