There is considerable discussion in the Law Enforcement Community regarding admissibility issues involving photographs captured with digital cameras. These discussions are concerned with essentially four issues:

The purpose of this Police Central White Paper is to discuss these issues to aid Law Enforcement Officers as to the usability of Digital Cameras within their jurisdictions. It should be noted, that the author has significant experience with Digital Technology for over ten years and is a strong proponent of its use, especially in Law Enforcement applications.

The reader is strongly encouraged to discuss this issue with the appropriate District Attorney staff. Obviously, the DAs must be comfortable with this technology and be prepared to handle any potential challenges.

The first cameras promoted as "digital" were introduced in the late 1980s. As an example, Sony Corporation introduced the "Mavica" series of cameras that captured and recorded an image on a "mini disk". This reusable disk held up to fifty pictures and could be immediately printed or stored on computer.

In reality, these "digital" cameras were in reality glorified video cameras equipped with electronic shutters and other features that improved video technology for still photography. Under proper conditions, and in the hands of a skilled photographer, these cameras produced surprisingly good photographs. But the inherent resolution of the pictures were limited by the basic video technology employed; and it was simply not possible to make an acceptable print larger than 4 x 6 or 5 x 7. Note that these cameras recorded a video "analog" signal on the disk (just like a VCR), thus the picture quality was further limited by this "composite video" technology. In addition, the camera was just the first purchase--a special "player" that played out the video signal, a "frame grabber" board in the computer, and a video printer was necessary; thus escalating the price to at least $20,000. Therefore, these early cameras had limited appeal and were used primarily in applications that had a clear need for immediate prints regardless of the costs involved.

In the early 1990s companies like Sony, Kodak, Canon and Nikon and others produced the first cameras that directly created a digital file. The digital format itself significantly improved photographic image quality. These images were typically stored on removable "PCMCIA Cards", better known as "Memory Cards" or "PC Cards". These digital photographic files could be read directly by the computer via inexpensive readers, thus eliminating the need for special video players.

At the same time, these companies began to develop CCD (Charged-Coupled Devices) sensors with better densities, hence higher resolution images. These cameras were also more familiar to the photographer and employed interchangeable lenses and other important features. Again, however, like any new technology, the costs were high, from $15,000 to $30,000 for the camera itself. Add the computer, digital camera and all of the other necessities and these solutions were to costly for the typical jurisdiction.

Today, there is a wide variety of digital cameras priced from $400 to $30,000. The inexpensive cameras are generally "point and shoot" cameras analogous to the old Brownie--thus devoid of the features that are required for effective crime scene documentation. Cameras under $1000 will prove very acceptable for auto accidents or other "low level" crime scenes; but cameras in the $2,000 to $5,000 range will be required for more serious documentation. The $20,000 to $30,000 cameras are simply deemed to expensive for most crime scene or forensics units. Thus, for purposes of this paper, the focus will be on the mid-range cameras, priced between $1,000 and $5,000. Digital cameras in this price range will shoot high quality photographs that can be printed up to an 8 x 10 size.

Note, however, that price has no bearing upon the procedures that must be followed to minimize a challenge to admissibility. Good standard operating procedures will apply to all digital photography.

Digital cameras use the CCD sensor to "capture" the photograph electronically. The camera then creates a digital file of this image that is recorded onto the storage media. This file is read into the computer, and an image is printed. Therefore, there is no film that exists with the "original" image of the photograph. Of course, the real issue is not the film; but has the photograph presented as evidence been altered.

Crime Scene Technicians, Forensic Specialists and District Attorneys have always been able to show a judge, jury and defense attorney a film negative (or polaroid) that is captured at the scene and processed chemically. Courts have traditionally held such evidence, along with contemporaneous investigation notes as admissible. What can be more solid than film that came out of a camera? Any juror can understand this technology and have confidence in the unaltered state of the evidence. Clearly, this film, that can be held in your hand, is seemingly uncontestable. But is it?

We all remember the O. J. case. Late in the case some thirty photographs, purporting to show O. J. in the "shoes" were presented by the prosecution. These film-based photographs--there was not one digital--were taken at different times by different photographers. Yet all of these photographs were challenged and the innuendo of "altered evidence" was introduced by the defense! The lesson is clear--even film is contestable.

Film based photographs have been altered for years. Photographic "retouchers" can do just about anything to piece of film. Pick up a copy of the National Enquirer to see some examples.

And, in fact, with relatively inexpensive scanners and film recorders, negatives can be easily scanned into a computer, manipulated (altered?) and recorded onto 35mm film. Presto--a "new" manipulated (altered?) piece of film to show to the jury. Can this be done? Absolutely. Is it detectable? Certainly--but not to the average defense attorney, judge or jury.

In addition, film is not always secure. Recently, a small sheriff's office documented a homicide with 35mm film cameras. They always used the local discount store to develop and print the film. When the Investigator went to pick up the prints a day later (you know what is coming!), there was about ten people at the photo counter eagerly looking through the crime scene photographs. Great evidence security.

Digital, although filmless on the other hand, offers features that can actually aid the investigator and secure the evidence if the proper procedures are followed!

Unfortunately, there is no clear case law, either Federal or State that directly addresses Digital Crime Scene Photographs. The Court have generally held, however, that photographic, video and audio evidence is admissible, providing documentary or testimonial supporting evidence is available. The fact that no direct case law is extant is not necessarily a negative as there are many digital cameras in use, and apparently there have been no serious challenges. Police Central, Inc. has commissioned a research project to periodically review case law changes involving this matter, and will publish results when necessary.

As discussed, until the last couple of years, digital cameras could not take a picture that would compare in quality with film. Clearly, even with the newest digital cameras, 35mm film still captures a photograph with more "image information". The question is, can digital cameras capture a picture of sufficient quality to document the crime scene. The answer is absolutely yes.

First, however, sound crime scene documentation methods must be used. Good methods include photographing the overall crime scene, perhaps from several locations. As with any camera, the photographer should then progressively take closer photographs of items of interest, with the last photos being macros or close-ups of detailed evidence. By following standard crime scene analysis techniques, digital cameras will produce 8 x 10 photographs that are almost indistinguishable from film based prints.

Second, the choice of a digital camera is critical. The reader is referred to another Police Central White Paper entitled "Considerations on Digital Cameras for Crime Scene Investigations", available on our Web Site at www.policecentral.com.

Finally, the world of digital offers the Crime Scene Technician certain tools that can be used to process the photograph. Some are similar to chemical adjustments that can be used on film to lighten or darken the image. But standard PC tools like Adobe Photoshop offer many enhancement capabilities that virtually not available with film and chemistry.

In summary, with the proper camera and printer, digital cameras will produce 8 x 10 photographs that most acceptable.

This Police Central White Paper assumes that the user has selected a PC computer, digital camera and printer. How can these components work together to insure admissibility of the photographs.

First, it is important to note that the camera itself cannot alter an image that has been captured and stored on the PCMCIA card. Thus, the image stored on the PC card, by definition is in an original state.

Some cameras today can print images directly to their companion printer ( i.e. the Fuji DS300 Digital Camera can print directly to the Fuji PG3000 color printer). If your camera/printer has this capability, we recommend that upon return to the Crime Scene Lab, the photos are immediately printed and labeled as "Original Camera Prints", along with the date, time and technician's initials. Later testimony can indicate that these photographs were directly printed, prior to any viewing on a computer system.

Should your equipment not have this capability for direct printing, it is important to maintain the original file in an indelible format. Recordable CDs are just the answer.

We are all familiar with CD-ROMs. A file recorded on CD cannot be "re-recorded"; in other words, when a file is stored on CD it is indelible. Further, the PC will automatically record a date and time in the file format. Now it is true that the file could be read into a PC and enhanced (altered?), and the enhanced (altered?) photograph recorded back onto the same (or different) CD. If recorded on the same CD, however, it must carry a new filename--as the original file name is indelible. And, in any case, the file would carry a new date and time stamp. The following are suggested guidelines for secure processing of digital photographs:

Many crime scenes require photographic documentation at night. Using traditional film cameras, a "bulb" (open lens) setting can be selected for timed exposures. On most digital cameras, this setting is not available--the longest exposures being in the half-second range. However, many digital cameras have and effective ISO rating of 800; with some cameras having an ISO 3200 rating.

Even with these faster speeds, however, traditional "paint with light" techniques are impossible with digital. We recommend, therefore, the most powerful external flash units for long nighttime shots. Another alternative is to have a couple of "slave" flash units positioned in the crime scene. When the main flash is fired, the slaves will also flash, thus illuminating multiple points in the scene.

If special lighting, i.e. ultraviolet, will be important, the user is cautioned to fully test the camera for this application. We have found cameras that will shoot UV; some special cameras claim to shoot infrared. Many digital cameras have special lens coatings that effectively block UV and infrared, thus they are not useable in these applications. Best recommendation is to thoroughly test.

1. Reduced Costs--a simple analysis of the direct amounts of money currently spent for film based photographs. Add up your costs for polaroids, 35mm film, developing and prints for court. In most jurisdictions, the investments in digital, including the PC, digital camera, printer, software and training will make strong financial sense.

2. Secure Chain of Evidence--all photographs will be maintained and printed by authorized law enforcement staff.

3. PC Time/Date Stamping of Digital Files--show an audit trail not available with film.

4. Indelibility of CD--secure, unalterable digital files.

5. Image Processing for clarity and annotation--images can be brightened, darkened, sharpened, and otherwise processed for clarity of detail.

6. Accessibility --Photographs can be placed on a secure computer network and made available to investigators, DAs, medical examiner, Defense Attorneys, or other appropriate parties.

7. Review of Photos at Crime Scene--most new digital cameras permit the Investigator the ability to review photographs on a display prior to leaving the crime scene. This assures the Investigator that all photographs are well exposed and show details desired. No more lost, ruined or poorly exposed photographs.

Digital technology is clearly a strong alternative to film-based photography for crime scene documentation. It is our opinion that digital is not subject to defense challenges any more than film--providing good Standard Operating Procedures are in place that assure proper evidence handling.

As with most technology today, the key is designing a system, incorporating the features that are importance, making sure that everything operates together, and integrating the system with proper procedures. Although many departments may have capable systems personnel, we strongly urge agencies to use commercial systems integration companies with Law Enforcement background to assist in developing these solutions.

Information presented in this White Paper represent the opinions of the author and Police Central, Inc. The Company believes the information presented is accurate as of the date of issue; however the Company disclaims and responsibility or liability for any information contained herein.

Police Central, Inc. is an Atlanta based supplier of Law Enforcement Imaging Software. Current uses of Police Central software include Crime Scene Photography, Crime Scene Image Database management, Mugshot Management, Warrant Tracking, Law Enforcement Staff Database and ID, Megan's Law Sex Offender Registration, and other related applications.

Copyright 1998 by Police Central, Inc. All rights reserved.