• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale
    • Yale Journal of Law and Technology
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale
    • Yale Journal of Law and Technology
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    COURTING CHAOS: CONFLICTING GUIDANCE FROM COURTS HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED FOR CLEARER RULES TO GOVERN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    10_12YaleJL_Tech311_2009_2010_.pdf
    Size:
    2.335Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Robinton, Lily
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7772
    Abstract
    Today's digital devices allow users to store an astounding amount ofpersonal information and data of all types. People now favor hard drives and e-mails over file cabinets and letters. When conducting criminal investigations in today's high-tech world, forensic analysts may compare digital fingerprints rather than physical ones. Investigators must obtain search warrants before examining any digital device for evidence of criminal activity, just as they would before searching a suspect's car, home, or office. In the digital context, however, the warrant requirement goes awry. Traditional search and seizure rules fail to prevent general, exploratory searches, which threaten individual privacy rights. Courts recognizing this problem have adopted "special approaches" for conducting digital media searches. Although these approaches provide greater protection for privacy rights, they often severely hamper legitimate law-enforcement interests. In order to both preserve privacy rights and promote justice, legislatures must enact laws directed at the search and seizure of digital media. These laws should (1) require investigators to follow narrow search protocols, but allow expanded searches where necessary; (2) require investigators to obtain a second warrant before seizing out-of-scope evidence, with a narrow exception; and 3) require a taint team to review digital media containing privileged or third party files.
    Collections
    Yale Journal of Law and Technology

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.