Computer sciences and Information technology
Identify two reported court cases that have impacted the evidentiary process or analysis in digital forensic cases
Project description
Project 1: Case Analysis
Identify two reported court cases that have impacted the evidentiary process or analysis in digital forensic cases; student will cite the case and summarize the issue before the court; the majority of the analysis should be dedicated to the impact the cases had on the application of digital evidence in the criminal justice system or the manner in which the digital forensic analyst performs his/her function
Project Requirements:
• 4 full pages minimum (approximately 2 pages per case)
• Cover page (not included in page count): course number, course title, title of paper, student’s name, date of submission
• Format: 12 point font, double-space, one-inch margin
• Cases should be formatted to include the case name, court, case number, and year. There should be a facts section, Court’s holding section, student’s analysis of what the court’s holding means, and impact section- how will the court’s decision impact digital forensic procedures, evidence, etc
IT MUST RELATE TO CYBER CRIMES
Here is an example, but make sure it relates to cybercrimes, not a regular criminal justice case
Project 1
Title: U.S. v John Doe, 123 U.S. 1234 (2011)
Synopsis (Summary/Fact etc):
John Doe appealed to the United States Supreme Court after he was convicted of possession and transportation of an illegal schedule II narcotic, namely, Hydrocodone. Mr. Doe move to suppress the evidence against him at the lower court and was denied. Mr. Doe claimed that the police arrived at his residence on November 1, 2009, and told him they were investigating a complaint regarding the theft of motor vehicle parts. They asked of they could search his apartment for the parts as they had reason to believe his roommate may have brought the part to his residence. Mr. Doe admitted the officers for the sole purpose of showing them that there were no auto parts, namely a radiator and a transmission that they alleged were stolen, in his apartment. When the officer begin looking in the kitchen cabinets and drawers he asked them what they were doing and they said they were looking for weapons or other things that may be used as a weapon against them. They stated this was for their own safety and Mr. Doe’s. At this point Mr. Doe asked the officer to stop what they were doing and leave the residence. The officer continued and when they entered a back bedroom found a box of pills that were later determined to be hydrocodone. Mr. Doe was arrested and admitted he did not have a prescription when asked after he was advised of his rights. Mr. Doe moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the police conducted a warrantless search after he withdrew his consent and the discovery of the hydrocodone was only made after consent was withdrawn. Mr. Doe further asked that his statement be suppressed as it was given only as a result of the unlawful search.
Holding: The lower court erred in not suppressing the evidence that was the result of a warrantless and therefore unlawful search. Mr. Doe consented to a search for automobile parts and withdrew his consent before the officers entered his bedroom based on the way in which they were conducting the search. Additionally, the court erred in not suppressing any evidence discovered after the consent was withdrawn and the statement as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Analysis: In this case the Supreme Court found that while the police may conduct a warrantless search with the consent of a party with proper authority to give such consent – Doe was a resident of the apartment – such consent can be withdrawn at any time. As a result of a consenter withdrawing their consent, the police must stop any search activity at that point. If the police wish to continue the search they would need to get a warrant. Additionally, any evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and therefor would be inadmissible.
Affect: The effect on computer forensics is that while the examiner can seize and examine a computer with consent from the owner, they must be aware that the consent can be withdrawn at any time and it is always better to obtain a warrant in advance of such refusal or withdrawal of consent.