Criminal Investigation and The Use of Modern Technology

Technology and Electronic Evidence

Numerous units are behind the curve in dealing with electronic evidence. There are several clarifications for this such as the quick alterations and proliferation of electronic gadgets, budgetary restrictions, and a shortage of good training chances. Conducting electronic forensics may cost a lot of money because of the licenses, tools and important experts needed to make the entire process a success (Argy & Mason, 2007). Showing cost sufficient income on investment is very important to safeguarding command employee purchase in. Financing these determinations may be a big problem for the minor departments since the whole process may include a complex combination of local, state and federal budgets. However, regional approaches and other kinds of the alliance can be of great importance as long as the police officers are keen to notice where they should bring in their help. In short, electronic evidence needs to be planned for and is very important for almost all stages in the investigation or prosecution process.

When a legal process or action over transactions carried out electronically, the same electronic records that made practical benefits for the business may cause evidentiary problems for the law (Clement & Obar, 2016). Certain rules and regulations are put forward to control the collection and use of electronic evidence. In Canada, most of these policies are found and explained in detail in the Canada Evidence Act. Additionally, police officers need some legal authorization and proper equipment before setting out to collect evidence during a crime investigation. Police officers need a digital search warrant before they receive any electronic evidence in a criminal investigation.

A search warrant may be granted to look into a computer or electronic media if there is any reason to believe that the media has some proof of a crime, results of the offense or was used as an instrument for a crime(Sheppard, Duranti & Rogers, 2010). Search warrants should specifically state the area to be searched and the items to be apprehended. For instance, when electronic storage media is supposed to be examined since they keep details that is proof of a crime, the things to be arrested under the warrant should often concentrate on the aspects of the related files instead of the physical storage media. In certain dominions, magistrates may enforce particular situations on how to execute the search or need police to clarify their strategy to restrict search before granting of the warrant. Additionally, courts have insisted that the Fourth Amendment requires the forensic assessment of a computer or electronic gadget to be done within a sensible period. Extended delay in getting a search warrant to examine apprehended electronic device is regarded unsensible under the Fourth Amendment.

After getting the digital search warrant, the police can search anything listed in the warrant (Duranti, 2010). Computer documents, emails, messages, dealings, photos and internet histories are instances of details that can be collected by police officers from electronic gadgets and applied very efficiently as proof. For example, mobile devices use online-grounded backup structures, also referred to as the cloud which offers forensic investigators with entrée to messages and photos taken from a specific phone. These structures storage a mean of 1,000 to 1,500 or more of the latest messages transacted with the phone. Additionally, a lot of mobile gadgets keep details about the places where the gadget toured and the exact date.