Eariler I read the above article in the local paper which has alot more information than above one does .. but any way..
The driver basically crashed into stationary traffic and said he was aware traffic was ahead due to annoucements on the signs on the motorway. But denies he was actually on the laptop at the time of the crash looking for a new route around the traffic ahead, as the prosecutor had accussed.
The guy claimed he had it on the passanger seat closed, but investigators found it on the dash open and facing the drivers seat.
I would imagine this would be pretty easy to proove with a quick investigation obviously not if the laptop went up in the fire.
My questions are…
Would a typical first arrival scene investigator think that the laptop could be key evidence and worth securing? (obviously only if it was safetly possible to get)
In such a situation would a digitial investigation even be needed?
Id be curious to hear what people think.
As the trial is still on-going, a hypothetical answer could be to seizure a device whether a laptop, satnav, mobile phone etc if it is considered something that may be a factor contributing to an accident. Clearly if the device is in the boot of the car at the time of the accident then it wouldn't make good evidence to suggest it was being used at the material time (the time of the accident).
I am not in the police, but I have seen evidence over many years that involves drivers and devices, particularly mobile telephones. As a reference point, I was the prosecution's expert in the case of R .v. Mill 1997. The defendant was the first motorist to be convicted of using a mobile phone whilst driving in the UK. The Court found reckless manslaughter with a finding it was caused as a contributing factor when the driver was using a mobile phone whilst driving. I believe the defendant's mobile phone was seized as evidence and I believe it continues to be the same procedure in majority if not all road traffic fatalities that devices like this maybe seized where it is in proximity to the driver irrespective whether the device is switched ON or not.
I would be surprised if a digial investigation, once the device was seized, wouldn't be undertaken, where there are no admissions from the driver. Indeed, it may be necessary anyway to examine to see if the device was being used as it might be a cover story for someone who may have been under the influence of drink and/or drugs whilst driving.
But these are hypothetical observations only.
I saw this story yesterday and thought about forensic analysis of the laptop.
I think as both the lorry and the car was on fire and people were in both, collecting evidence would (quite rightly) would not be top priority of the emergency services who are first on the scene.
The lorry driver said he was looking at his laptop's display as he was referencing the GPS app on it to find an alternative route. I don't know the full story but I think what he was actually looking at on his laptop and at what time are not that relevant to the case; that his attention was distracted is the main point.