Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges, Case Law, and Reform Perspectives

  • Independent Applicant, Tashkent State University of Law

DOI

https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol4-iss6-pp115-127

Keywords

Digital evidence , Criminal process , Privacy rights , Data minimization , Judicial oversight , Legal reform

Abstract

The article examines the use of digital evidence in criminal proceedings, focusing on the challenges in legal practice in Uzbekistan and international standards. The introduction explores the unique features of digital data, including confidentiality and technical complexity. Key U.S. court precedents, such as Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States, are discussed as benchmarks for protecting rights during the seizure and analysis of digital evidence. The study highlights legislative gaps in Uzbekistan, such as the absence of data minimization mechanisms and low levels of judicial oversight. Risks of data leaks and misuse during the handling of digital evidence are also detailed. In conclusion, the article provides recommendations for legislative reform: introducing data minimization principles, enhancing judicial control, employing filtering technologies, and enforcing accountability for data breaches. It argues for the modernization of legal norms to balance investigative efficiency and the protection of citizens' constitutional rights.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). (2012). ACPO Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence.

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). (2012). ACPO Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence. (Дополненное издание).

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).

Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press.

Casey, E., & Turnbull, B. (2014). Digital Evidence on Mobile Devices. Forensic Science International, 236, 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.006

Cellebrite. (n.d.). Digital Intelligence Solutions. https://www.cellebrite.com/

Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No.185). https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/185

ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes). (2015). Guidelines for Best Practice in the Forensic Examination of Digital Technology.

European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2013). Cyber Forensics – A Field Manual for Collecting, Handling and Analyzing Information and Evidence Related to Cybercrime. ENISA.

European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2015). Tools and Methodologies to Support Cooperation with CERTs for Law Enforcement. ENISA.

Europol. (2020). First Responders Guide to Handling Electronic Evidence. https://www.europol.europa.eu

Europol. (2020). Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA). https://www.europol.europa.eu

Ferguson, A. G. (2018). The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement. NYU Press. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com

Henderson, S. E. (2015). Riley v. California: Carding a Path Out of the Cellar. SSRN-id2586464. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2586464

Kerr, O. S. (2014). Foreword: Accounting for Technological Change. Harvard Law Review, 36 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 403. Also available at SSRN: SSRN-id2628586. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2628586

Kerr, O. S. (2018). Carpenter v. United States and the Fourth Amendment: A Preliminary Analysis. Harvard Law Review Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/carpenter-v-united-states-and-the-fourth-amendment-a-preliminary-analysis/

Kerr, O. S. (2020). Decryption Originalism: The Lessons of Burr. Harvard Law Review, 134, 905-970. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com

Kerr, O. S. (2020). Executing Warrants for Digital Evidence: The Case for Use Restrictions on Nonresponsive Data. Texas Tech Law Review. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561285

Kshetri, N. (2019). Cybercrime and Cybersecurity in the Global South. Palgrave Macmillan.

Magnet Forensics. (n.d.). Magnet AXIOM. https://www.magnetforensics.com

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2006). Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response (SP 800-86). U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2014). Guidelines on Validating Forensic Tools and Methods (NISTIR 8006). U.S. Department of Commerce.

Popova, I. A. (2018). Improving the Use of Electronic Evidence in the Criminal Process: Legal Regulation and Practice. Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Economics. Management. Law, 18(2), 239–243. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).

Slobogin, C. (2015). Policing as Administration. William & Mary Law Review, 165(3), 865–886. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol165/iss3/5/

Solove, D. J. (2018). Carpenter v. United States and the Mosaic Theory. GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2018-60. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3245527

Sommer, P., & Taylor, M. (2016). Digital Evidence, Digital Investigations and E-Disclosure: A Guide to Forensic Readiness. British Standards Institution.

Tokson, M. (2018). Carpenter and the Mosaic Theory. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 20(2), 540–560. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol20/iss2/4

Tor Project. (n.d.). About. https://www.torproject.org/about/

U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-mlats/

Wexler, R. (2020). Privacy as Privilege: Law Enforcement’s Breakable Shield. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3674899

Балашова, A. A. (2020). Электронные носители информации и их использование в уголовно-процессуальном доказывании. Москва: Академия управления МВД РФ.

Закон Республики Узбекистан «О персональных данных» (ЗРУ-547 от 2 июля 2019 г.). Доступно на: https://lex.uz

Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Узбекистан. Доступно на: https://lex.uz

Downloads

81 30

Published

Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges, Case Law, and Reform Perspectives

How to Cite

Sobirov, S. (2023). Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges, Case Law, and Reform Perspectives. Society and Innovation, 4(6), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol4-iss6-pp115-127