Skip to main content

Survey of Law Enforcement Perceptions Regarding Digital Evidence

  • Conference paper

Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT,volume 242)

Abstract

This paper analyzes state and local law enforcement agents’ perceptions about prosecutors’ knowledge of digital evidence and their willingness to prosecute cases involving digital evidence, and agents’ perceptions about judges’ knowledge of digital evidence and their willingness to admit digital evidence in legal proceedings, Statistical analysis indicates that a significant negative correlation exists between the size of the population served by law enforcement agents and their perceptions about judges’ knowledge of digital evidence and willingness to admit digital evidence. Also, positive relationships exist between the size of the population served and law enforcement perceptions of prosecutors’ knowledge of digital evidence and willingness to prosecute digital evidence cases, and perceptions about judges’ willingness to admit digital evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

Keywords

  • State and local law enforcement
  • digital evidence
  • prosecutors
  • judges

References

  1. E. Appel and M. Pollitt, Report on the Digital Evidence Needs Survey of State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (http://www.jciac.org/docs/Digital%20Evidence%20Survey%20Report.pdf), 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Armstrong and P. Russo, Electronic forensics education needs of law enforcement, Proceedings of the Eighth Colloquium on Information Systems Security Education, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Caloyannides, Computer Forensics and Privacy, Artech House, Norwood, Massachusetts, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. Casey (Ed.), Handbook of Computer Crime Investigation: Forensic Tools and Technology, Elsevier, London, United Kingdom, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Clifford, D. Moreau, M. Miquelon-Weismann, D. Lamb, I. Orton, J. Savage and S. Brenner, Cybercrime: The Investigation, Prosecution and Defense of Computer-Related Crime, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. Etter, The challenges of policing cyberspace, Proceedings of the NetSafe II Conference (http://www.netsafe.org.nz/Doc_Library/netsafepapers_barbaraetter_policing.pdf), 2003.

  7. Institute for Security Technology Studies (ISTS), Law Enforcement Tools and Technologies for Investigating Cyber Attacks: A National Needs Assessment, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire (http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/TAG/lena.htm), 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Institute for Security Technology Studies (ISTS), Law Enforcement Tools and Technologies for Investigating Cyber Attacks: Gap Analysis Report, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire (http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/TAG/gap_analysis.htm), 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Lambert, T. Nerbonne, P. Watson, J. Buss, A. Clarke, N. Hogan, S. Barton and J. Lambert, The forensic science needs of law enforcement applicants and recruits: A survey of Michigan law enforcement agencies, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, vol. 14(1), pp. 67–81, 2003.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Losavio, J. Adams and M. Rogers, Gap analysis: Judicial experience and perception of electronic evidence, Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, vol. 1(1), pp. 13–17, 2006.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. A. Marcella and R. Greenfield (Eds.), Cyber Forensics: A Field Manual for Collecting, Examining and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes, Auerbach/CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. Mercuri, Challenges in forensic computing, Communications of the ACM, vol. 48(12), pp. 17–21, 2005.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. B. Reaves and M. Hickman, Census of state and local law enforcement agencies, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 194066, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cslleaOO.pdf), 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Rogers and K. Seigfried, The future of computer forensics: A needs analysis survey, Computers and Security, vol. 23(1), pp. 12–16, 2004.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Stambaugh, D. Beaupre, D. Icove, R. Baker, W. Cassady and W. Wiliams, State and local law enforcement needs to combat electronic crime, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/183451.pdf), 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rogers, M., Scarborough, K., Frakes, K., San Martin, C. (2007). Survey of Law Enforcement Perceptions Regarding Digital Evidence. In: Craiger, P., Shenoi, S. (eds) Advances in Digital Forensics III. DigitalForensics 2007. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 242. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73742-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73742-3_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73741-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73742-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)