Define The Role Of Forensics In A Criminal Investigation (Essay Sample)

Criminal Law
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Criminal Law
Introduction
Forensic procedures play a significant role in investigations. These procedures provide bit by bit instructions and protect the investigation as well as the citizens. For any evidence obtained during a criminal investigation, it is imperative that investigators follow procedures to ensure that the evidence obtained is acceptable in court (Farmer & Venema, 2005). A suspect’s rights cannot be violated just to acquire proof. The Fourth and Fifth rights of Amendment were set up to make sure that enforcement of law do not over step their boundaries. The Fifth Amendment safeguards citizens from irrational searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment shields citizens from implicating themselves and double trouble (Farmer & Venema, 2005). When investigators collect, process, and analyze the digital proof entailed in cell phones, laptops, networked computers, and PDA’s they ought to follow the citizens’ rights for court procedures.
The highest consideration that should be considered is whether or not an individual’s expectation of privacy is violated as a result of the search. The constitution of the United States shields citizens against unreasonable and unlawful searches as well as seizures (Casey, 2000). In accordance with the case study, every item placed in the upstairs office like the PDAs, laptops, cell phones, and computers are safeguarded under the 4th rights of amendment hence indicating that the investigators will have to get a search warrant.
Laws
Forensics proof is just as treasured as the reliability of the means that the proof was acquired (Casey, 2000). The mechanisms used to get evidence are well represented once standards are acknowledged and readily recognized by the community of digital forensics. The 4th amendment restricts the government agents’ ability to carry out search and seizure proof tactics minus a warrant, not excluding computers. According to the 4th amendment, the right of individuals to be safe in their houses as well as effects against irrational searches and seizures, will not get violated, and no warrants shall be issued (Farmer & Venema, 2005). However, upon feasible cause, backed up by affirmation or Oath, and specifically illustrating the areas to get searched, the things or person can be seized (Farmer & Venema, 2005).
The 4th amendment question, which normally presents in digital evidence scenarios asks whether a person has a rational privacy expectation having electronic data put on electronic devices under the person’s control (Nelson, 2004). Computer proof can bring up a challenge for both defendants and prosecutors alike. Technological as well as storage capability for mobile devices has increased exponentially. In the past decade, mobile devices’ features and capabilities have transformed them into information repositories, which can store a big quantity of both organizational and personal information (Curran et al, 2010). Regrettably, criminals are up to date with the mobile device data revolution. During the last few years, criminals have gradually been using handheld devices such as mobile phones in executing criminal acts (Nelson, 2004).
The 4th amendment authors might not have envisaged the strong technology of the current electronic age (Farmer & Venema, 2005). Courts have just started to respond to difficult questions, which get introduced via the application of such devices. Present doctrine of the 4th amendment and precedent cases indicate that the Supreme Court in the United States would accord to invasive mobile device’s searches found on an individual (Curran et al, 2010). It has permitted an exception allowing warrantless searches on the basis that law enforcement needs to be permitted to search for weapons as well as other proof that may possibly be connected to an alleged criminal activity. The American government and various local prosecutors consider that warrantless searches are suitably constitutional in the course of arrests (Curran et al, 2010).
Privacy advocates consider that present legal rules permitting enforcement of law to search suspects during an arrest need not relate to mobile devices such as smart phone (Farmer & Venema, 2005). It is because the information value being stored is higher and the danger of an insensitive search is much greater, like PII. Personally identifiable information (PII) is considered as the information linked to a person including and not restricted to financial transactions, education, employment or criminal history, and medical information (Curran et al, 2010). The information can be applied to trace that person’s identity like name, birth date, or social security number. Whereas technologies have transformed with years, the principle of search incident has remained constant.
The 4th and 5th amendments relate to digital evidence and mobile electronic devices just as they apply to any other kind of criminal proof. Legally, when dealing with mobile devices and computers, it is imperative for the forensics agent to handle them in the same manner they would to a closed container, like a file cabinet or a briefcase (Farmer & Venema, 2005). Generally, the 4th amendment forbids personnel of law enforcement from accessing, observing, or examining data stored on a mobile device or computer once the law enforcer would be restricted from opening a sealed container and inspecting its contents in similar state (Curran et al, 2010). The forensics agent should always unde...