By Ishaanvi Saini
Abstract
Digital evidence has become a pivotal point in modern legal proceedings, influencing verdicts in criminal investigations and civil litigation. Courts are increasingly dependent on data from surveillance systems, mobile devices, and algorithmic tracking tools. Digital evidence chains are critical for establishing the authenticity and subsequently the admissibility of digital artifacts into criminal proceedings. This blog post analyzes the collection, storage, and dissemination of digital evidence in the legal system. This post emphasizes risks such as structural bias, manipulation, and preservation of digital evidence.
Introduction
“Digital evidence” refers to all forms of information stored and transmitted through a digital device that can be used in judicial proceedings to substantiate facts regarding a particular case.[1] Its significance has been escalated due to the prevalence of technology in current criminal activities, leaving digital evidence crucial for investigations and judicial outcomes. This form of evidence is deemed distinct due to its intricacy and extensiveness, as data can come from phones, cloud storage, or even GPS systems, and it typically exists in several places at once.[2] The work involved in collecting data for digital evidence becomes more complex for law enforcement agencies (LEAs) because they need to collect the data with caution without losing any part of it. Digital evidence is not always clear to the court, requiring the courts to rely on specialists and technological procedures to clarify the collection process and the means of its gathering.[3]
To resolve such problems, LEAs and investigators adhere to the digital evidence chain, commonly referred to as the chain of custody. This is a systematic procedure that records each phase of the evidence life cycle, starting from its identification to its presentation in court. Such an approach guarantees that all contact with evidence will be documented and kept confidential to prevent any unwarranted access or tampering, because without this routine, even solid digital evidence could be disputed or overlooked in court, emphasizing the critical importance of effective oversight in modern legal proceedings.[4]
Forensic Foundations of Digital Evidence
As digital evidence proceeds from its initial collection to the courtroom, its reliability and credibility are determined by more than simply the data itself; it is also influenced by the underlying principles and procedures with which it is handled. On December 1, 2020,[5] the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open-Source Investigations was officially launched to address this need, providing guidelines to guarantee that digital investigations are being conducted consistently and in accordance with legal and ethical standards.[6] By following these regulations, it improves the quality of evidence as well as reinforces each phase of the evidentiary chain through promoting coordination among the involved stakeholders, starting from the initial gathering of digital content to its analysis and presentation in court.[7] The vast amount of digital data and information accessible online is just one of the many reasons these procedures and regulations are needed. For instance, service companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft collectively host over 1.2 million terabytes of data along with billions of web pages that anyone can access.[8] Moreover, the rapidity at which new data is submitted is evident by the fact that every minute, over 350,000 tweets and over 50 hours of videos are uploaded to social media platforms like Twitter and YouTube.[9] The speed and abundance of data allowed the statutes of the Berkeley Protocol to be established with a primary focus on realistic approaches for managing digital evidence, involving protecting metadata, acquiring original material, and using methods, such as chrono location and geolocation to guarantee authenticity and reliability in judicial proceedings.[10]
Considering the technical cycle of digital evidence as more of a continuous life cycle rather than linear simplifies the tedious process of submitting and presenting information in court. The process begins with creation or digitization of evidence in manual, automated, or a combination of the two systems.[11] Once the evidence is taken to court, it may go through additional stages, including receiving further review from an appellate court, before long-term archival or permanent deletion.[12] At times when data is encrypted, corrupted, or too large to process, investigators will be unable to evaluate it on their own. The result is that they must send it for a forensic analysis. This may involve retrieving deleted or damaged files and identifying specific pieces of information in large datasets.[13]
Legal Challenges
In accordance with the Federal Rule of Evidence 901, “the proponent must produce evidence sufficient enough to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”[14] This ruling becomes stricter in the context of digital evidence, as the sourcing and handling of the data isn’t so obvious. For instance, in the 2007 case of Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., a disagreement over insurance coverage for damage to a yacht surfaced; however, both parties relied on using digital records, including emails and other electronic documents to advocate for their claims.[15] The court, on the other hand, claimed that a majority of the evidence was inadmissible since it wasn’t authenticated or backed up by documentation that could be used in court. At the same time, the court explicitly stated that electronically retrieved information must satisfy several statutory standards, including hearsay, relevance, and authentication, before it could be used. Digital evidence’s admissibility ultimately rests on whether it satisfies evidentiary standards than on its content.
In the 2006 case of United States v. Safavian, a criminal case was filed against a government official who was accused of deception and interfering with investigations against his own name and dealings with a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff. This case involved admitting a large number of emails as digital evidence, and the admissibility of these emails was crucial since the case revolved around whether they could be used to demonstrate the defendant’s intent and actions.[16] The court determined that the threshold for authentication was rather low, needing simply sufficient evidence for the jury to believe that it is what it claims to be. In this specific case, many emails were acceptable because they had identifiable email addresses, signature blocks, and relevant content regarding the individuals.
Tampering with digital evidence is a major legal issue because it leads people to believe false information, like claiming a situation happened, when it really didn’t. This has a direct impact on the reliability of evidence presented in court, because even small alterations can create a big difference and can cause the evidence to be hard to trust or accepted. Findings confirm that tampering with digital evidence and creating a convincing product is deemed to be difficult and that a majority of them are ultimately detected; however, since these manipulations can still fool investigators, strict authentication procedures need to be followed.[17] To resolve this issue, forensic experts utilize hash values to ensure that no data has been changed or manipulated since it was first created.[18]
While the digital realm continues to expand, the courts tend to not adopt these changes as fast, while some even resist the change.[19] For instance, many lower courts don’t allow tools like live streaming or electronic communication, whereas some higher courts allow limited digital access, revealing a gap between what technology can do and what the law requires.[20] This delay in legislation causes it to be more challenging to consistently manage and evaluate digital evidence, reinforcing the importance of clear standards in legal procedures.
Ethical Flashpoints
In digital forensics, human bias, as well as automated systems that result in biased data or faulty algorithms, can lead to systemic bias.[21] Open-source investigations may disregard some groups or types of crime by mistake, given that search engines and access to technology tend to favor more obvious or popular points of view.[22] These biases collectively suggest that digital evidence may not always give a full or unbiased view, supporting the need to carefully evaluate this evidence to be certain that legal proceedings are fair and accurate.
These issues go beyond reliability and begin to create more significant ethical concerns about the application of digital evidence, with the Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy during digital searches being one of the primary concerns. With digital evidence, investigators typically have to examine a large amount of information to extract a specific piece of data, which leads to a large amount of private information being exposed.[23] The complicated reality is that the current U.S. data privacy laws are spread across organizations, meaning security measures vary based on the type of data and who collects it. This issue becomes worse by the popular practice of ”seize now, search later,” in which devices that frequently consist of large amounts of private information, are taken and examined later.[24] However, the courts have acknowledged that the more they use digital tools and surveillance, they have to balance it with justice, because excessive can violate constitutional safeguards.[25] These concerns suggest that we need clearer standards that let investigations happen and respect people’s rights as digital evidence grows.
As digital technologies change who may access and share information about the courts’ processes, confidence in the legal system may also change. Although real-time reporting is now possible due to digital tools, the courts continue to favor the traditional media outlets over the general public, restricting engagement and creating an unfair distribution of information.[26] Updating the court’s systems and procedure grows to become more difficult since every judge can decide how to employ technology in their courtrooms, which makes things inconsistent across jurisdictions and cases. Consequently, public trust may be damaged by not just the visual appeal of digital evidence, but also by how fairly access to that information is really controlled.
Conclusion
Digital evidence has grown into an integral part of modern legal proceedings; however, its value depends on more than just the data itself, it also relies on how it is gathered, stored, and reviewed during the evidentiary process. In addition to processing new forms of evidence, the legal system is now confronted with handling a brand-new body of knowledge for which it was not designed. There remain areas where the understanding, evaluation, and use of digital evidence have not been adequately addressed despite well-defined methods of collecting and evaluating the evidence using forensic tools. Moreover, issues concerning privacy, discrimination, and accessibility become even more important and relevant, especially when they overlap with challenges associated with digital evidence cases.
Abdullah, Hafiz Omer, Mudassir Maqsood, and Ahmad Nadeem. “Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Standards, Chain of Custody, and Evidentiary Reliability in The Digital Era.” Research Journal for Social Affairs 3, no. 5 (2025): 795–805. https://doi.org/10.71317/rjsa.003.05.0375.
Berkeley, UC. “Developing the Berkeley Protocol.” Berkeley Human Rights Center, 2020.
Congress, United States. “Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence.” FRE 901, 2011.
Fatoumata. “THE ISSUES OF PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN AMERICA 1.” Marymount University College of Business, Innovation, Leadership, and Technology, 2023.
Friedman, Paul L. “United States v Safavian.” U.S. District Court, 2006.
Giova, Giuliano. “Improving Chain of Custody in Forensic Investigation of Electronic Digital Systems.” IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 2011. http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201101/20110101.pdf.
Grimm, Paul W. “G:\JUDGEPWG\ESIADMISSIBILITY OPINION.Wpd.” U.S. District Court, 2007.
Jinad, Razaq, Khushi Gupta, Ecem Simsek, and Bing Zhou. “Bias and Fairness in Software and Automation Tools in Digital Forensics.” Journal of Surveillance, Security and Safety 5, no. 1 (2024): 19–35. https://doi.org/10.20517/jsss.2023.41.
Juhana. “16DigitalEvidenceElecSign.Pdf.” HeinOnline, 2019.
Kovalenko, Artem, Volodymyr Kovalenko, and Yehor Nazymko. “ELECTRONIC (DIGITAL) EVIDENCE COLLECTION IN ECONOMIC CRIME INVESTIGATIONS.” Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 11, no. 2 (2025): 142–49. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2025-11-2-142-149.
McDermott, Yvonne, Alexa Koenig, and Daragh Murray. “Open Source Information’s Blind Spot.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 19, no. 1 (2021): 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab006.
Nath, Souradip, Keb Summers, Jaejong Baek, and Gail-Joon Ahn. “Digital Evidence Chain of Custody: Navigating New Realities of Digital Forensics.” 2024 IEEE 6th International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems, and Applications (TPS-ISA) 00 (2024): 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/tps-isa62245.2024.00012.
OHCHR, and Human Rights Center at the University of California. “Berkeley Protocol.” Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2022. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/OHCHR_BerkeleyProtocol.pdf.
Olgun, Prof. Dr. “10.57083-Adaletdergisi.1217741-2826163.Pdf.” Justice Magazine, 2022.
Puddister, Kate, and Tamara A. Small. “Navigating the Principle of Open Court in the Digital Age: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.” Canadian Public Administration 62, no. 2 (2019): 202–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12323.
Rajamäki, Jyri, and Juha Knuuttila. “Law Enforcement Authorities’ Legal Digital Evidence Gathering.” 2013 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, 2013, 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1109/eisic.2013.44.
Schneider, Janine, Julian Wolf, and Felix Freiling. “Tampering with Digital Evidence Is Hard: The Case of Main Memory Images.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 32 (2020): 300924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.300924.
Trevisan, Stefano. “Open-Source Information in Criminal Proceedings: Lessons from the International Criminal Court and the Berkeley Protocol.” Giurisprudenza Penale, 2021.
Wilson, Henrietta, Olamide Samuel, Dan Plesch, Lindsay Freeman, and Alexa Koenig. “Open Source Investigations in the Age of Google.” Security Science and Technology, 2024, 112–29. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781800614079_0006.
[1] Hafiz Omer Abdullah, Mudassir Maqsood, and Ahmad Nadeem, “Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Standards, Chain of Custody, and Evidentiary Reliability in The Digital Era,” Research Journal for Social Affairs 3, no. 5 (2025): 795–805, https://doi.org/10.71317/rjsa.003.05.0375.795–805, https://doi.org/10.71317/rjsa.003.05.0375
[2] Jyri Rajamäki and Juha Knuuttila, “Law Enforcement Authorities’ Legal Digital Evidence Gathering,” 2013 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, 2013, 198–203, https://doi.org/10.1109/eisic.2013.44.
[3] Giuliano Giova, “Improving Chain of Custody in Forensic Investigation of Electronic Digital Systems,” IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 2011, http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201101/20110101.pdf.
[4] Souradip Nath et al., “Digital Evidence Chain of Custody: Navigating New Realities of Digital Forensics,” 2024 IEEE 6th International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems, and Applications (TPS-ISA) 00 (2024): 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1109/tps-isa62245.2024.00012.
[5] UC Berkeley, “Developing the Berkeley Protocol,” Berkeley Human Rights Center, 2020.UC Berkeley, “Developing the Berkeley Protocol,” Berkeley Human Rights Center, 2020.
[6] OHCHR and Human Rights Center at the University of California, “Berkeley Protocol,” Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/OHCHR_BerkeleyProtocol.pdf.
[7] Henrietta Wilson et al., “Open Source Investigations in the Age of Google,” Security Science and Technology, 2024, 112–29, https://doi.org/10.1142/9781800614079_0006.Wilson et al.
[8] Stefano Trevisan, “Open-Source Information in Criminal Proceedings: Lessons from the International Criminal Court and the Berkeley Protocol.,” Giurisprudenza Penale, 2021.
[9] Trevisan.
[10] Trevisan.
[11] Juhana, “16DigitalEvidenceElecSign.Pdf,” HeinOnline, 2019.
[12] Juhana.
[13] Artem Kovalenko, Volodymyr Kovalenko, and Yehor Nazymko, “ELECTRONIC (DIGITAL) EVIDENCE COLLECTION IN ECONOMIC CRIME INVESTIGATIONS,” Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 11, no. 2 (2025): 142–49, https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2025-11-2-142-149.
[14] United States Congress, “Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence,” FRE 901, 2011.
[15] Paul W. Grimm, “G:\JUDGEPWG\ESIADMISSIBILITY OPINION.Wpd,” U.S. District Court, 2007.
[16] Paul L. Friedman, “United States v Safavian,” U.S. District Court, 2006.
[17] Janine Schneider, Julian Wolf, and Felix Freiling, “Tampering with Digital Evidence Is Hard: The Case of Main Memory Images,” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 32 (2020): 300924, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.300924.
[18] Prof. Dr. Olgun, “10.57083-Adaletdergisi.1217741-2826163.Pdf,” Justice Magazine, 2022.
[19] Kate Puddister and Tamara A. Small, “Navigating the Principle of Open Court in the Digital Age: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same,” Canadian Public Administration 62, no. 2 (2019): 202–24, https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12323.
[20] Puddister and Small.
[21] Razaq Jinad et al., “Bias and Fairness in Software and Automation Tools in Digital Forensics,” Journal of Surveillance, Security and Safety 5, no. 1 (2024): 19–35, https://doi.org/10.20517/jsss.2023.41.
[22] Yvonne McDermott, Alexa Koenig, and Daragh Murray, “Open Source Information’s Blind Spot,” Journal of International Criminal Justice19, no. 1 (2021): 85–105, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab006.
[23] Fatoumata, “THE ISSUES OF PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN AMERICA 1,” Marymount University College of Business, Innovation, Leadership, and Technology, 2023.
[24] Fatoumata.
[25] Abdullah, Maqsood, and Nadeem, “Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Standards, Chain of Custody, and Evidentiary Reliability in The Digital Era.”
[26] Puddister and Small, “Navigating the Principle of Open Court in the Digital Age: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.”