Legal & Ethical Issues in Digital Forensics Flashcards

Which exception to the warrant requirement allows law enforcement to conduct a warrantless search to prevent imminent destruction of evidence?

Answer: Exigent circumstances

The exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless searches when evidence would likely be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained.

Under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), service providers are generally prohibited from:

Answer: Voluntarily disclosing the contents of stored communications to third parties

The SCA prohibits voluntary disclosure of stored communication contents to non-government entities without legal process.

A forensic examiner is asked by an attorney to alter a forensic report to support a client's position. The examiner should:

Answer: Refuse and report the request to the appropriate ethics board

Altering forensic reports is unethical and potentially criminal; examiners must refuse and report such requests per professional standards.

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine means that:

Answer: Evidence obtained through an unlawful search may be inadmissible along with subsequent evidence it led to

This doctrine excludes evidence discovered as a result of an illegal search, as it is tainted by the original constitutional violation.

Which type of legal process generally requires the LEAST judicial oversight when obtaining digital records from a third-party provider?

Answer: Grand jury subpoena

A grand jury subpoena requires no judicial approval before issuance, making it the process with the least pre-issuance oversight.

In the context of digital forensics, 'spoliation' refers to:

Answer: The intentional or negligent destruction or alteration of evidence

Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence, which can result in adverse inference instructions against the responsible party.

Which standard governs the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in federal courts?

Answer: Daubert standard

The Daubert standard, established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), requires federal judges to assess the reliability and relevance of expert testimony.