The judicial system has experienced numerous changes concerning operations such as collection and analysis of evidence, owing to the advancement in technology. Technology has made it possible for people to use digital devices across the globe and most people now more than ever are connected to digital devices. As a result, certain crimes occur owing to the use of digital devices for the sharing, transfer as well as storage of content, data and information. Therefore, certain judicial processes have employed the use of things such as digital evidence, in a bid to hear and resolve certain court cases, especially ones involving the use of digital devices to commit crime or fraud.
However, the use of digital evidence in the hearing and determining of court cases have associated implications and undertakings. Numerous cases today have used digital evidence in the hearing and determining of cases, thus show evidence of the process of its acquisition, the role it plays as well as the value of digital evidence. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to examine a court case that used digital evidence as a valuable aspect in the deciding of the case. This will entail examining factors such as specifics of computer investigation, case summary, warrants and seizures of evidence, participants in the investigation of digital evidence, the value of the digital evidence on the outcomes of the chosen case, as well as recommendations regarding digital evidence and how it applied in the subject case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Case Summary
The United States v. Ganias case is one in which there is evidence of challenges facing the legal world concerning the application of constitutional law to the rapidly evolving technology. In the United States v. Ganias case, the Second Circuit held that the act of retaining files outside the scope of a warrant from the lawfully imaged hard drives for a period of over two and half years, by the government was a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Kerr, 2015). In 2003, an investigation was launched by the Army in a bid to establish whether the alleged “improper conduct” was true as per the actions of an army contractor, Industrial Property Management (IPM). The army in conducting the investigations was able to seize material in the form of digital data from the defendant, Stavros Ganias, an accountant at IPM. The warrant authorized the army to seize records, documents, materials, books, software, and hardware as well as associated data on IPM computers. This saw the Army’s computer specialists make forensic mirror images of all three of the defendant’s computers, where the digital evidence would be acquired since the warrant was executed, thus conducting hard drive cloning. Investigations commenced, and the ones undertaking it or were in charge of the investigation allegedly reviewed data only that was within the scope of the warrant.
The case’s proceedings suggest that the data obtained was in the form of non-volatile data, thus the ability of the data to be held on for over two and a half years. It was indeed established that the defendant had interfered with the tax returns of his clients as well as himself, thus making him guilty. However, the issue of the case regarded the amount of time the government could hold on to a seized material containing digital evidence, thus upholding the warrant. Failure to delete or purge the acquired files not pertaining to IPM led to an instance of “non-responsiveness” to the warrant (Kerr, 2015). Therefore, on appeal by the defendant, Stavros Ganias, the court held that indeed by seizing the material acquired from the defendant for over two and held years was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, thus contributing to the outcome of the case.
Warrants and Seizures of Evidence
The knowledge that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure with regards to the digital sector provides direction on how warrants are issued as well as the guidelines under which seizures can occur. In the United States v. Ganias case, a warrant was issued allowing the Army to seize records, documents, materials, books, software, and hardware as well as associated data on IPM computers. However, the issue became the period that the seized material was kept, thus failure by the government to demonstrate responsiveness with regards to what the issued warrant deemed necessary.
When Stavros Ganias in 2008 was indicted for tax evasion and conspiracy, he in 2010 sought to suppress the use of evidence obtained in 2006. The defendant argued that the data outside the 2003 warrant’s scope had been held for an unreasonable amount of time and that failure to return that data was reason enough to expel that data as digital evidence. The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in April 2010, denied the motion, arguing that the data in question be seized in the pursuit of a valid warrant as it was less intrusive to the defendant. As a result, the defendant Ganias was convicted on account of tax evasion, which led to him moving for a new trial over alleged jury misconduct. However, the district court denied the motion, sentencing Ganias to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. However, there was reversed the denial of the motion to suppress by the Second Circuit, thus vacating Ganias ’s conviction, as well as remanding further proceedings (Kerr, 2015).
Panel judge Chin questioned seizure and warrants regarding digital evidence by asking,
whether the Fourth Amendment permits officials executing a warrant for the seizure of particular data on a computer to seize and indefinitely retain every file on that computer for use in future criminal investigations (Kerr, 2015).
The fact that the Second Circuit held that the act of seizing the material acquired from the defendant for over two and held years was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the case was evidence that in the event of obtaining and using digital evidence, certain laws apply regarding the warrants for and seizure of such data concerning the amount of time it can be held and whether after a certain period such evidence is still admissible in court.
Participants in the Investigation of Digital Evidence
Typically, participants in the investigation of digital evidence consist of warranted participants as well as computer specialists. Warranted participants refer to the law enforcement participants such as police officers warranted to seize digital data. Computer specialist, on the other hand, examines incidences such as cloning of data, establishing whether write blockers have been used as well as establishing the volatility of the data, depending on the requirements of the case. Regarding the United States v. Ganias case, the participants in the investigation included IRS and the Army, which employed the help of computer specialists for the retrieval and examination of digital evidence.
The investigators in the case are considered to have engaged in hard drive cloning, which was the result of Army’s computer specialists’ creation of forensic mirror images of all three of the defendant’s computers. Hard drive cloning refers to an instance in which the content of a computer’s hard drive is copied, saved as disk image files and transferred to a storage medium, such as another computer’s. The reason why the material collected in the name of digital evidence was kept for over two years as a result of hard drive cloning. The panel of judges presiding over the case is also considered a participant in the investigation of digital data as they examine the evidence presented to them in a bid to determine the case.
The Value of the Digital Evidence on the Outcomes of the United States V. Ganias Case
Digital evidence in the United States v. Ganias case resulted in influencing the outcome of the case. In this case was that the Second Circuit held that the act of retaining files outside the scope of a warrant from the lawfully imaged hard drives for a period of over two and half years, by the government was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the digital evidence was valuable at helping the investigators establish that indeed the defendant engaged in tax evasion and conspiracy. Therefore, digital evidence influenced the manner in which the United States v. Ganias case was decided, as it was established that there was “non-responsiveness” to the warrant, thus the Second Circuit’s decision (Kerr, 2015). In addition to that, the case was used as a reference point for future cases involving digital evidence and the observance of the Fourth Amendment’s protection regarding the digital frontier, thus the value of digital evidence in this case’s outcome.
Recommendations Regarding Digital Evidence
Digital evidence is one of the best forms of evidence, especially if it is in the form of images or videos and data that cannot be altered. However, there should have been an observation of the stipulations of the warrants would have prevented the material collected, thus digital evidence, from suppression of use against the defendant. In the future, clear guidelines and stipulations regarding the seizure period of digital evidence and whether that evidence can be used later without being dismissed. Therefore, future cases using digital evidence should follow the stipulated guidelines concerning the seizure of digital evidence as well as avoiding “non-responsiveness” to the warrant for the seizure of digital data. This will prevent digital evidence from being dismissed, and failure of it being used as it is valuable when used as warranted and within the required period. Overall, digital evidence is a great form of evidence as it can provide insight into court decisions when used within the guidelines of laws such as the Fourth Amendment.
Reference
Kerr, O. S. (2015). Executing warrants for digital evidence: The case for use restrictions on nonresponsive data. Tex. Tech L. Rev. , 48 , 1.
