Dealing with Digital Evidence Backlog 

Don Kohtz

Storage, resources and personnel can push digital evidence processing back for months. Is outsourcing the answer?

Digital evidence is everywhere, and it's compounding. Larger storage space on smaller, more portable devices means more convenience for criminals. Mobile phones, flash drives, digital cameras and voice recorders, GPS devices, wireless hard drives and conventional desktop and laptop computers increase cases' complexity, and obtaining their stored evidence takes more time, expertise and equipment.

Furthermore, the evidence is not limited to the jurisdiction in which it was found. Identity theft, child pornography and fraud span local, state and even national boundaries. So in addition to processing a higher volume of evidence, law enforcement must share information to a greater extent than ever before.

Regional task forces have helped to some extent. They pool local and county resources, and are often supported with state and federal funding. They are especially useful to smaller agencies, which get access to personnel and equipment they would not otherwise have. Still, even task forces and the forensic labs attached to them must prioritize caseloads in order of severity.

An alternative, the outsourcing of digital evidence to private forensic firms is often dismissed by law enforcement for a variety of reasons. Yet it has been successful in the United Kingdom, as is outsourcing of physical evidence DNA, drug testing and audio/video analysis in the United States. Thus digital forensic outsourcing deserves careful consideration. 

Why not outsource?

Several arguments exist as to why law enforcement should not outsource digital forensics - and these are explored in Issue 6 - out in February. Subscribe today!