From the TV programme it can be seen the Officer didn't have a warrant he was checking it out first and would have used seizure under eg Section 19 PACE 1984. There would be no time to get a warrant at the time of stop and search. The discretion issue of 'is it' or isn't it' is a continuation after the fact of stop and search, ergo "To seize or not to seize, that is the question?. I have diluted the aforementioned because I didnt want to write a tomb on all the 'ins' and 'outs' and then get it wrong, as well (heaven forbid !!).
I just think that were going a little overboard if we consider any computer at any crime scene evidence. That's bound to be the challenge of the future. Every device will be a computer. We will need to train first responders better in determining what to sieze.
There maybe some ocassions when, for reasons best known to those at the time, a 'type' of examination may be needed. Your suggestion of better informed responders goes to the issue also about the need for clarification in the content of Guidelines and the impact of treatment applied to devices during the hand-to-hand process of "chain of custody".
I'm waiting for the first washing machine to come through the door.
"I'm innocent I tell ya! I was home doing laundry"
I'm waiting for the first washing machine to come through the door.
"I'm innocent I tell ya! I was home doing laundry"
lol
But do we let it finish the cycle or pull the plug?
….or pull the plug?
Would the lead (connected to the plug that is plugged into the power grid) be wrapped around the suspect's leg?
How long will Computer Forensic Standards Last?
A police officer switching ON a device that is already switched OFF at a potental crime scene should be an absolute no-no, according to Forensic bibles, case law etc. Indeed, even the Police's official release version of ACPO Guidelines categorically states for Crime Scenes Page 8/66
"• Do not, in any circumstances, switch the computer on."
Why does this matter? It is a flagrant breach of that principle when we see on "Cops on Camera" ITV 3 Saturday 8pm 4th July 2010 patrol car police stopping a car in Lewisham, questioning the driver about drug related matters (ok, to this point) and then the officer opens the boot of the car and in it he sees a laptop. Did the officer put the laptop in an evidence bag? Oh no, he switches ON the laptop.
The programme clearly demonstrated a major pyschological flaw in the thinking of those who are generating evidential rules vis-a-vis evidential standards. The actions of the Police officer, who I do not think is to blame, actually, because you see the way he went about the task displaying little regard for the rules - which probably means he doesn't know them or they are not enforced properly.
Moreover, it certainly highlights the redundancy of ACPO Guidelines, because what is the point of promoting good practice principles and expect them to be followed in the Lab and at Scene of Crime, yet when it comes to devices in cars or people walking along the street with devices then a wild-west approach of anything goes to deal with the evidence occurs.
Furthermore, it undermines s129 Criminal Justice Act 2003 reliability to seek overt declarations of change to data by ignoring the use of this wild-west approach and reduces the reliability of evidence to nothing more that speculative assumptions. This certainly reveals the slippery slope Lord Steyn raised when as Steyn HHJ R v Minors [1989] 1 WLR 441 he said “if computer evidence cannot be used, much crime would be immune to prosecution also”? For computer evidence to be used it has to be as reliable as possible, at first instance, and reflect the behaviour of the defendant, not the world and his wife who have also had a go at the computer.
Discussion Continues . . . .
Anyone who has seen one of the last few episodes of "Spooks" drama series on BBC1 will agree with the importance of and adherence to forensic principles; scenarios similar to the one dramatised in one of these episodes are highly possible in real life.
For those who have missed this episode, some MI5 Agents raid an assasin's hideout and find it vacant. After searching the hideout they find one laptop in "On" mode. One of the agents who is also an IT Forensic geek jumps on the scene and offers to break the password and image the HDD and after few tries he fails and then immediately the system starts countdown numbers. At this point another agent realizes that it is booby trapped bomb and as they all escape from the hideout the booby trapped laptop bomb explodes.
There isn't any doubt that in this era of printer cartridge bombs and mobile phone hidden guns, this is very much possible in real life scenarios. I believe it is not far when law enforcement agencies will have to summon the assistance of bomb disposal teams to scan for booby trapped digital devices in high profile cases before initiating any investigation procedures or they might already be doing so.
Finally, it is unbelievable BBC that relays popular programme Crime Watch and has numberous experts in crime solving and above all a dedicated High Tech Crime Unit and vast resources must have atleast done some research and consulted its specialists before finalizing the script for this episode instead of showing complete disregard towards the IT forensic principles . . . .
For those who have missed this episode, some MI5 Agents ….
….
Finally, it is unbelievable BBC that relays popular programme Crime Watch and has numberous experts in crime solving and above all a dedicated High Tech Crime Unit and vast resources must have atleast done some research and consulted its specialists before finalizing the script for this episode instead of showing complete disregard towards the IT forensic principles . . . .
I don't think that MI5 agents (or more generally Government Security Agencies other than Police) are oriented towards making a properly backed up by evidence judicial case along the book of "proper digital forensics practice", I guess that sometimes time (second,minutes, hours) make the difference with the kind of information/menaces/whatever they have to deal with. roll
They do hire IT forensic specialists
https://
but I presume they keep them in the laboratory and the people who actually "raids" anything are actual "special force" kind of officers.
BTW they are also hiring carpenters 😯
https://
jaclaz
I agree that TV often misrepresents things, but I can conceive of real life circumstances in which it may be necessary to deviate from normal procedures for the preservation of evidence; most notably in responding to immediate threats to life or limb.
I understand what you are saying, but it's like asking how long laws will last because you see people breaking them. Laws persist, so will standards. In both cases those who break them will be punished. For investigators who fail to adhere, their investigation will be for naught.
Furthermore, in both cases, I would suspect that is the minority that do such things. But, there won't be much demand for programs that highlight people obeying the law, just like there isn't much demand for showcasing investigators maintaining good practices and standards.
How long will Computer Forensic Standards Last?
A police officer switching ON a device that is already switched OFF at a potental crime scene should be an absolute no-no, according to Forensic bibles, case law etc. Indeed, even the Police's official release version of ACPO Guidelines categorically states for Crime Scenes Page 8/66
"• Do not, in any circumstances, switch the computer on."
Why does this matter? It is a flagrant breach of that principle when we see on "Cops on Camera" ITV 3 Saturday 8pm 4th July 2010 patrol car police stopping a car in Lewisham, questioning the driver about drug related matters (ok, to this point) and then the officer opens the boot of the car and in it he sees a laptop. Did the officer put the laptop in an evidence bag? Oh no, he switches ON the laptop.
The programme clearly demonstrated a major pyschological flaw in the thinking of those who are generating evidential rules vis-a-vis evidential standards. The actions of the Police officer, who I do not think is to blame, actually, because you see the way he went about the task displaying little regard for the rules - which probably means he doesn't know them or they are not enforced properly.
Moreover, it certainly highlights the redundancy of ACPO Guidelines, because what is the point of promoting good practice principles and expect them to be followed in the Lab and at Scene of Crime, yet when it comes to devices in cars or people walking along the street with devices then a wild-west approach of anything goes to deal with the evidence occurs.
Furthermore, it undermines s129 Criminal Justice Act 2003 reliability to seek overt declarations of change to data by ignoring the use of this wild-west approach and reduces the reliability of evidence to nothing more that speculative assumptions. This certainly reveals the slippery slope Lord Steyn raised when as Steyn HHJ R v Minors [1989] 1 WLR 441 he said “if computer evidence cannot be used, much crime would be immune to prosecution also”? For computer evidence to be used it has to be as reliable as possible, at first instance, and reflect the behaviour of the defendant, not the world and his wife who have also had a go at the computer.