STOP, You’re on Camera: The Evidentiary Admissibility and Probative Value of Digital Records in Europe

  • Saleh Al-ShariehEmail author
  • Jeanne Mifsud Bonnici
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Criminology book series (BRIEFSCRIMINOL)


Under the rule of law, the punishment of an accused is possible only when his or her guilt is proven before the judiciary in accordance with legal safeguards including the rules of evidence law. Digital community policing systems—mobile device policing applications and associated networks and servers—collect, transmit and store digital records relevant to violations of law, which can be used by law enforcement agencies as tips to collect further evidence and by prosecutors to prove the guilt of the accused. These digital records must meet the law requirements with regard to the admissibility and probative value of evidence: relevance, legality, authenticity and reliability. Therefore, digital community policing systems should have measures that: (1) enable the identification of the source of the digital records and the time, date and location of their creation; (2) protect the digital records from alteration, manipulation or damage during the collection, transmission or storage; (3) ensure that the digital records are what they purport to be and (4) verify whether the digital records have suffered any omissions.


Digital records Identification of source Admissibility of evidence Probative value of evidence Authenticity and reliability 


  1. Allegrezza, S. (2010). Critical remarks on the green paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one member state to another and securing its admissibility. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 9, 569–579.Google Scholar
  2. Brenner, J. C. (2004). Forensic science: An illustrated dictionary. London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, C. S. D. (2015). Investigating and prosecuting cyber crime: Forensic dependencies and barriers to justice. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9, 55–119.Google Scholar
  4. Buisman, C., Bouazdi, M., & Costi, M. (2010). Principles of civil law. In K. A. A. Khan, C. Buisman, & C. Gosnell (Eds.), Principles of evidence in international criminal justice (pp. 7–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, T. H. C., & Conte, M. (2014). Terry stops, anonymous tips, and driving under the influence: A study of Illinois law. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 45, 1143–1193.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, J., & Marx, G. (2011). Technological innovations in crime prevention and policing. A review of the research on implementation and impact. Cahiers Politiestudies Jaargang, 20, 17–40.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chaski, C. E. (2005). Who’s at the keyboard? Authorship attribution in digital evidence investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, C. E. (1942). The function of law in a democratic society. University of Chicago Law Review, 9, 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubord, P. (2008). Investigating cybercrime. In J. J. Barbara (Ed.), Handbook of digital and multimedia forensic evidence (pp. 77–89). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duranti, L. (1995). Reliability and authenticity: The concepts and their implications. Archiv, 39, 5–10.Google Scholar
  12. Frase, R. S. (1990). Comparative criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: How do the French do it, how can we find out and why should we care? California Law Review, 78, 539–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giova, G. (2011). Improving chain of custody in forensic investigation of electronic digital systems. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 11, 1–9.Google Scholar
  14. Gless, S. (2010). Truth or due process? The use of illegally gathered evidence in the criminal trial. In J. Basedow, U. Kischel, & U. Sieber (Eds.), German National Reports to the 18th International Congress of Comparative Law (pp. 675–709). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  15. Hodgson, J. (2005). French criminal justice: A comparative account of the investigation and prosecution of crime in France. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Insa, F. (2007). The admissibility of electronic evidence in court: Fighting against high-tech crime. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 1, 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keane, A., & McKeown, P. (2016). The modern law of evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr, O. S. (2001). Computer records and the Federal Rules of evidence. United States Attorneys’ USA Bulletin, 49, 1–9.Google Scholar
  19. Kuntze, N., et al. (2012). On the creation of reliable digital evidence. In G. Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances in digital forensics (pp. 3–17). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Law Reform Commission. (2009). Documentary and electronic evidence. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from
  21. Leroux, O. (2004). Legal admissibility of electronic evidence. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 18, 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma, Y. (1999). Comparative analysis of exclusionary rules in the United States, England, France, Germany, and Italy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 22, 280–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McQuade, S. (2006). Technology-enabled crime, policing and security. Journal of Technology Studies, 32, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice. (2008). Electronic crime scene investigation: A guide for first responders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  25. Nzjboer, J. F. (2000). Methods of investigation and exclusion of evidence: A comparative and interdisciplinary perspective. In J. F. Nijboer & W. J. J. M. Sprangers (Eds.), Harmonisation in forensic expertise (pp. 431–446). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  26. Pattenden, R. (2009). Authenticating ‘Things’ in English law: Principles for adducing tangible evidence in common law jury trials. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 12, 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pradel, J. (2000). Criminal evidence. In J. F. Nijboer & W. J. J. M. Sprangers (Eds.), Harmonisation in forensic expertise: An inquiry into the desirability of and opportunities for international standards (pp. 411–429). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  28. Pugh, G. W. (1962). Administration of criminal justice in France: An introductory analysis. Louisiana Law Review, 23, 1–28.Google Scholar
  29. Reed, C. (1990). The admissibility and authentication of computer evidence-a confusion of issues. Computer Law & Security Report, 6, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rengel, A. (2013). Privacy in the 21st century. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rentschler, C. A. (2016). Technologies of Bystanding: Learning to see like a Bystander. In S. Pearl (Ed.), Images, ethics, technology (pp. 15–40). New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Shifrin, O. S. (1991). Fourth amendment--protection against unreasonable search and seizure: The inadequacies of using an anonymous tip to provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 760–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Solon, M., & Harper, P. (2004). Preparing evidence for court. Digital Investigation, 1, 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sopinka, J. (1999). The law of evidence in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  36. Stannard, G. M. (2015). The Liar and the Loophole: Corporate character evidence and impeachment. Brooklyn Law Review, 81, 239–267.Google Scholar
  37. Stephen, J. (1886). A digest of the law of evidence. London: William Clowes & Sons.Google Scholar
  38. Thayer, J. (1898). A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co..Google Scholar
  39. The Law Commission. (1995). Evidence in criminal proceedings: Hearsay and related topics. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  40. Thomson, L. L. (2013). Mobile devices new challenges for admissibility of electronic evidence. The SciTech Lawyer, 9, 1–5.Google Scholar
  41. Tillers, P., & Schum, D. (1991). A theory of preliminary fact investigation. Davis Law Review, 24, 931–1012.Google Scholar
  42. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948, December 10). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Res 217 A (III).Google Scholar
  43. Wigmore, J. H. (1942). The American law institute code of evidence rules: A dissent. American Bar Association Journal, 28, 23–28.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, K. (1998). Do we really need the federal rules of evidence? North Dakota Law Review, 74, 1–34.Google Scholar
  45. Woods, D. C. (1931). The French Court of Assizes. American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 22, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Private Law, College of LawUnited Arab Emirates University (UAEU)Al Ain, Abu DhabiUAE
  2. 2.Department of Transboundary Legal Studies, Faculty of LawUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations