Background
In 2017, Americans used over 15.7 trillion megabytes (MB) of mobile data, a number that quadrupled from just 3 years before.1 In 2024, the average North American is predicted to use nearly six times more data than they did in 2018.2 As digital device use grows exponentially, the criminal justice system has struggled to keep pace with how this information can aid in criminal investigations and how forensic laboratories manage digital evidence (DE) processing and analysis. In May 2020, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) published the Digital Evidence: Policies and Procedures Manual to provide DE collection, handling, and processing guidelines to assist with accreditation.3 Beyond these federal efforts, the evidence base is slim for best practices in collecting and submitting DE by law enforcement (LE) and triaging, defined as reviewing the material on DE to determine submission need, and processing data by appropriate crime laboratory personnel. However, to manage the exponentially increasing volume of data coming into LE agencies and crime laboratories annually, significant research is needed to develop sustainable models for prioritizing and processing electronic devices and their data and for identifying resources (e.g., evolving technologies) and evidence retention needs given finite storage capacities.
Goals and Research Questions
This formative study aimed to produce practical knowledge on the uses and value of DE, including increasing investigative intelligence and probative value, and to provide an evidence base for more efficient and effective DE management and processing, which would in turn help eliminate backlogs, optimize available resources, and decrease justice delays. This study was also conducted to respond to NIJ's recent report, Needs Assessment of Forensic Laboratories and Medical Examiner/Coroner Offices, which calls to introduce "triaging workflows across staff levels to examine and preserve evidence at the scene or early in the investigation" as a promising practice.4 The following research questions were answered in response to NIJ's goal to assess existing laboratory protocols and improve our understanding of scientific rationale underpinning existing laboratory processes:
- What protocols, practices, and technologies do crime laboratories and LE agencies have regarding the processing of DE?
- Which established practices result in the highest percentages of successful outcomes?
- What are the most prevalent and impactful gaps affecting case outcomes?
The project was conducted in three phases. Our agency partners-the Houston Forensic Science Center, the Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification and consultant Troy Lawrence of the Fort Worth Police Department informed phases one and two.