Essay Sample on Forensic Procedures to Collect Forensic Evidence from Digital Devices

Police must ensure that they obey the correct protocols laid down in the rules of law and constitution when gathering evidence. Failure to follow the appropriate procedures can infringe on the civil rights of those under investigation. Besides, incorrect methods may result in a failed trial or even legal action against the investigator. The fourth and fifth amendments are intended to ensure that searches and seizures are deemed as appropriate as far as possible. Records stored on a computer are subject to various rules, depending on the type of files. The fourth amendment protects everyone’s right to be secure in their property, residence, and person from search and seizure. On the other hand, the fifth amendment protects the individual from self-incrimination.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Police are expected to take into account various related issues when deciding if a police search for a device needs authorization. The main concern to be examined includes determining whether or not the search violates a fair expectation of privacy. If it breaches an equitable forecast of confidentiality if the search is nevertheless permissible as they search for and search for computers lies within the scale of the warrant provision. Citizens have secured rights provided to them under the fourth amendment, and the bill offers safeguards from unreasonable seizures and searches in which computers are usually shielded from law enforcement surveillance and access to data stored on a machine if it is illegal to open a closed container and inspect its details in a similar case. Agents must also determine whether a search breaches the requirements of privacy (Michels, 2016). Even if a search is contrary to standards, it can still be fair if it falls within the warrant requirement scope. Police may perform a search without a warrant if the individual with jurisdiction has approved to the inquiry, whether there is a risk that the evidence will be lost, or if the proof is in plain view.

A search is lawful if it does not infringe on the valid or fair expectation of an individual's privacy. This inquiry involves two distinct questions; first, whether the person's behavior represents the real forecast of confidentiality; and, secondly, if the intuitive forecast of confidentiality by a person is one that the community is inclined to accept as fair. A citizen has an equitable right to privacy in a property situated within a home for a child. On the other hand, an individual does not have a fair forecast of confidentiality in tasks performed in open fields. The most fundamental fourth amendment in computer cases is to decide if a person has a justifiable presumption of confidentiality in electronic data stored on computers under the control of the individual. For example, if people have a fair forecast of confidentiality in the details of their machines or mobile phones, they must typically obtain a warrant or lie within the scale of the warrant requirement before the government accesses the inside information (Michels, 2016). Accessing information kept on a device would typically require a fair presumption of privacy on the part of the user. While people primarily maintain a fair expectation of privacy in the closed container contents, they usually retain a justifiable forecast of confidentiality in the information kept by electronic storage gadgets.

No warrant is required if the subject consents to search his / her computer. Also, no permit is necessary if a third person, such as a co-worker, boss, parent, or spouse, consents to the search, provided that the third party has reasonable control over the machine. The lack of fair standards of privacy and the lack of fourth amendment rights is particularly significant because a great deal of information is transmitted to networks and the Internet. The search warrant gives the police very minimal power to search. The search will not be more extensive than required unless justified by probable cause. Therefore, if the probable cause suggests that the contraband is contained in a CD file, that does not excuse the seizure of any device and server at the premises. The scope of the search is adapted to the degree of probable cause (Marshall, 2017). When the police want to seize a computer and examine it later, the probable cause statement will demonstrate the risk or impracticability of the on-site analysis of the device, thus the need to confiscate it and study it off-site. There shall be no warrant except on probable cause, accompanied by confirmation or oath, and in particular specifying the location to be inquired and the individuals or items to be seized.Forensic Procedures to Process Forensic Evidence from Digital Devices

Within the modern age, the fifth amendment is focused on encryption. Many users have converted their data into a code that prevents unauthorized access to their information. It then isn't straightforward for investigators to access the news because they do not have the primary entrance to the data. The only way for investigators to access the information is by providing the user with protection so that they will not send data through the files that could cause harm. However, immunity is not mandatory if prosecutors can pass a fisher's test to decide if the creation of these documents will self-incriminate the person. In the case of a fisher, the government may compel private critical production or message decryption only if it shows that the requested private key or document will not have its authentication supported by production or decryption, is managed, located, owned by the requested individual and exists (Bajpai, 2020). Decryption may be required if the three measures are taken to allow investigators to maintain their fifth amendment rights, and so does the customer. The consumer continues to be protected by their fifth amendment rights despite digital crime. Besides, the person cannot be required to decrypt the encrypted files discovered during the legal compilation of proof.

Proof of a crime will not always be in the register. This could be buried deep inside computer files, making it incredibly difficult to find and recover evidence without the necessary time and resources. Because the review of a computer for digital proof of a crime is time-consuming and complicated, it is impractical to perform a detailed on-site search of a computer or any other electronic device. Of these purposes, the courts have allowed the removal of machines from an off-site location of review. Neither the fourth amendment nor the federal rules of criminal procedure placed specific limitations on the length of any forensic examination and verified forensic analyzes performed months after the police had legally confiscated a computer.

In conclusion, the rapid shift in technology is becoming increasingly complicated for investigators, as the complexity, the scale of the investigation, and the limits of the search have expanded. The consumer under investigation is still covered by the fourth and fifth amendments and offers a safe forum for all users. The fourth and fifth amendments have a negative and positive impact on the constitution. To residents, it is crucial that it preserves their privacy and prohibits the police from illegally searching and taking ownership of land. When it comes to the viewpoint of law enforcement, it can be detrimental in that it allows individual suspects the ability to kill or delete evidence before a warrant can be released. The introduction of the fifth and fourth amendments is vital to the modern age so that all in society can enjoy the privacy and freedoms that they deserve.

References

Bajpai, A. (2020). Search & seizure of digital evidences and modification of digital evidence challenges. National Journal of Cyber Security Law, 2(2).

Marshall, J. G. (2017). Fourth Amendment Implications on the Search and Seizure of a Smartphone.

Michels, C. (2016). What's In The Box? Re-Conceptualizing Computers as Containers, Metadata as Contents of that Container, and Applying Fourth Amendment Protections. Criminal Law Practitioner, 3(2), 2.