Built-in GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and QZSS, S6 with 64-bit dual-core processor, W3 Apple wireless chip, U1 Ultra Wideband chip, Barometric altimeter, Capacity 32GB, Blood oxygen sensor, Optical heart sensor, Electrical heart sensor, Improved accelerometer up to 32 g‑forces, Improved gyroscope, Ambient light sensor, LTPO OLED Always-On Retina display with Force. This page is a list of the episodes of The Outer Limits, a 1995 science fiction/dark fantasy television series.The series was broadcast on Showtime from 1995 to 2000, and on the Sci Fi Channel in its final year (2001–2002).

1. Criminal Frequency Mac Os Download
2. Criminal Frequency Mac Os Catalina

These computers support up to 192 kHz sample rate for audio playback:

• MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) through MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Early 2015)
• MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013) through MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)
• iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2014) through iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2014)
• iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5-inch, Late 2015)
• iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014) through iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015)
• Mac Pro (Late 2013)
• Mac mini (Late 2014)

To set your Mac to play high sample rate audio:

1. Connect one end of a TOSLINK optical cable to the headphone port on your Mac, and connect the other end to your audio device, such as an AV receiver.
2. Open Audio MIDI Setup, which is in the Utilities folder of your Applications folder.
3. Select your audio device from the list on the left side of the Audio Devices window.
4. If necessary, choose “Use this device for sound output” from the Action pop-up menu .
5. Select a sample rate, such as 176400.0 Hz or 192000.0 Hz, from the Format pop-up menu.

If the audio hardware in your Mac doesn't support high sample rate audio, you can use a third-party digital audio interface.

Publisher

The Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (ADFSL)

Abstract

Though the use of computer forensics in criminal investigations has expanded in recent years, there is little empirical evidence about the prevalence of the use of digital evidence in the court system and its impact on prosecution outcomes. This paper was an examination of criminal cases before the United States Courts of Appeal in which legal issues were related to digital evidence. The purpose of this research was to determine the most common legal basis for appeals relating to the introduction or exclusion of digital evidence, the frequency with which cases involving an appeal regarding digital evidence affirmed or reversed for the defense, whether certain challenges to digital evidence are more prevalent than others, and whether there are trends or areas of the law as applied to computer forensics and digital evidence needing further attention by the criminal justice system.

References

[Special issue]. (2015). Cornell Law Review, 101(1).

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending (Summary), Doc. No. Table 2 (). Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/file/19017/download

Ami-Narh, J. T., & Williams, P. A.H. (2008). Digital forensics and the legal system: A dilemma of our times. Australian digital forensics conference.

Angeli, D. H., Schuck, C., & Taylor, A. (2010, August). Article: The plain view doctrine and computer searches: Balancing law enforcement's investigatory needs with privacy rights in the digital age. The Champion, 18-24. Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/810a0c0a-462b-4302-9f92-4db3c87e81e4/?context=1000516

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 S. Ct. 321 (1987).

Atkinson, J. S. (2014). Proof is not binary: The pace and complexity of computer systems and the challenges digital evidence poses to the legal system. Birkbeck Law Review, 2(2), 245-261.

Bagley, W. A. (2011). Don't be evil: The fourth amendment in the age of google, national security, and digital papers and effects. Albany Law Journal of Science Technology, 21(1), 153-192.

Barbara, J. J. (2012, September 4). Computer forensics standards and controls. Forensic Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2012/09/computer-forensics-standards-and-controls.

Bartholomew, P. (2014). Seize first, search later: The hunt for digital evidence. Touro Law Review, 30(4), 10.

Benesh, S. C., & Reddick, M. (2002). Overruled: An event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 534-550.

Butler, A. (2014). Get a warrant: The Supreme Court’s new course for digital privacy rights after riley v. California. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 10(1), 83-108.

Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence in the courtroom. In Digital evidence and computer crime (3rd ed., pp. 49-82). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Chism v. State of Washington, 661 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2011).

Churchill, M. H., Mauler, D. D., McLaughlin, M. J., & Vincent, M. K. (2015). Admitting and authenticating electronic evidence in court, including trial-like demonstrations. The federal bar association’s 2015 federal litigation conference, pp. 1-20.

Churchill, M. H., Mauler, D. D., McLaughlin, M. J., & Vincent, M. K. (2015, October 27). Admitting and authenticating electronic evidence in court, including trial-like demonstrations. Paper presented at The Federal Bar Association’s 2015 Federal Litigation Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah/USA.

Clancy, T. K. (2005). The fourth amendment aspects of computer searches and seizures: A perspective and a primer. Mississippi Law Journal, 75, 193-272.

Clancy, T. K. (2010). Digital child pornography and the fourth amendment. Judges' Journal, 49(3), 26-32.

Clark, W. (2015). Protecting the privacies of digital life: Riley v. California, the fourth amendment’s particularity requirement, and search protocols for cell phone search warrants. Boston College Law Review, 56(5), 1981-2018.

Cole, K. A., Gupta, S., Gurugubelli, D., & Rogers, M. K. (2015). A review of recent case law related to digital forensics: The current issues. 2015 ADFSL conference on digital forensics, security and law, pp. 95-104.

Congressional Research Agency Library of Congress. (1996). The constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and interpretation (Report No. 103–6) (J. H. Killian & G. A. Costello, Eds.). Washington, DC/USA: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Court role and structure. (n.d.). Retrieved February 7, 2017, from United States Courts website: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure.

Crocker, A. (2016, June 3). Appeals court avoids hard questions about the “Collect it all” approach to computer searches [Blog post]. Retrieved from DeepLinks Blog: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/appeals-court-avoids-hard-questions-about-collect-it-all-approach-computer.

Daniel, L. E. (2009, October 23). Plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases—a common sense approach. Forensic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forensicmag.com/article/2009/10/plain-view-doctrine-digital-evidence-cases%E2%80%94-common-sense-approach.

Digital duplications and the fourth amendment. (2016). Harvard Law Review, 129(4), 1046.

Editorial Board. (2014). Riley v. California. Harvard Law Review, 128(1). Retrieved from http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11/riley-v-california/.

Epstein, J. (2016). Child pornography and exploitation. In A. Morosco (Comp.), The prosecution and defense of sex crimes (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=9cc0553738975770940ffffafb78ac5a&csvc=toc2doc&cform=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzk-zSkAl&_md5=685308ea17f6414e6a924c278fe5dec1.

Expectation of privacy. (2009, September 17). Retrieved December 20, 2016, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy.

Febus, C., Claude, J., & Singer, K. (2010, February). Understanding probable cause and overcoming staleness issues in child pornography cases. CEOS Quarterly Newsletter, 9-20.

Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 U.S.C. §§ 93-595 (1975 & Supp. 2014).

Frieden, J. D., & Murray, L. M. (2011). The admissibility of electronic evidence under the federal rules of evidence. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, XVII (2).

Friess, N. (2013). When rummaging goes digital: Fourth amendment particularity and stored e-mail surveillance. Nebraska Law Journal, 90(4), 972-1016.

Frost, A. (2015). Inferiority complex: Should state courts follow lower federal court precedent on the meaning of federal law? Vanderbilt Law Review, 68, 53-103.

Galves, F., & Galves, C. (2004). Ensuring the admissibility of electronic forensic evidence and enhancing its probative value at trial. Criminal Justice Magazine, 19(1).

Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital Investigation, 7(Supplemental), S64-S73.

Garfinkel, S. L. (2013). Digital forensics. American Scientist, 101(5), 370. Retrieved from http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/digital-forensics.

Garrie, D. B., & Morrissy, J. D. (2014). Digital forensic evidence in the courtroom: Understanding content and quality. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 12(2), 121-128.

Gershowitz, A. M. (2016). The post-riley search warrant: Search protocols and particularity in cell phone searches. Vanderbilt Law Review, 69(3), 585-638.

Givens, J. S. (2003). The admissibility of electronic evidence at trial: Courtroom admissibility standards. Cumberland Law Review, 34, 95.

Goldfoot, J. (2011). The physical computer and the fourth amendment, Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 16(1), 112. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjcl/vol16/iss1/3.

Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Digital evidence and the U.S. criminal justice system (Research Report No. RR-890-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Grimm, P. D. (2014). Authenticating digital evidence. GP Solo, 31(5), 47-49.

Grimm, P. W., & Brady, K. F. (n.d.). Admissibility of electronic evidence [Blog post]. Retrieved from Drug Device Law Blog: https://www.reedsmith.com/files/uploads/DrugDeviceLawBlog/Electronic_Evidence_-_Admission_Guide_pdf.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-35,798.

Gruenspecht, J. (2011). 'Reasonable' grand jury subpoenas: Asking for information in the age of big data. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 24(543).

Hart, A. (2014, July 26). In court, digital evidence can shine or fizzle. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.myajc.com/news/crime--law/court-digital-evidence-can-shine-fizzle/dsdyFH23L3IZZaoTrLYZAO/.

Holley, B. (2010). Digitizing the fourth amendment: Limiting the private search exception in computer investigations. Virginia Law Review, 96(3), 677-717.

Hood, N. (2011). No requirement left behind: The inadvertent discovery requirement—protecting citizens one file at a time. Valparaiso University Law Review, 45(4), 1529-1587.

How courts work. (2016). Retrieved January 15, 2016, from American Bar Association - Division for Public Education website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals.html.

Huynh, A. D. (2015). What comes after 'get a warrant': Balancing particularity and practicality in mobile device search warrants post-Riley. Cornell Law Review, 101(1), 187-222.

Jekot, W. (2007). Computer forensics, search strategies, and the particularity requirement. University of Pittsburgh School of Law Journal of Technology Law and Policy, 7, 1-44.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73 U.S.C. § SEC. 35 (1789).

Kassow, B., Songer, D. R., & Fix, M. P. (2011). The influence of precedent on state supreme courts. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 372-384.

Katz v. United States, 389 S. Ct. 347 (Dec. 18, 1967).

Kerr, O. S. (2003). A user's guide to the stored communications act, and a legislator's guide to amending it. George Washington Law Review, 72, 1208-1243.

Kerr, O. S. (2005). Searches and seizures in a digital world. Harvard Law Review, 119(2), 531-585.

Kerr, O. S. (2005). Search warrants in an era of digital evidence. Mississippi Law Journal, 75(85).

Kerr, O. S. (2010). Fourth amendment seizures of computer data. Yale Law Journal, 119(4), 700-724.

Kerr, O. S. (2011, June 23). The historical role of warrants, particularity, and magistrates [Blog post]. Retrieved from The Volokh Conspiracy website: http://volokh.com/2011/06/23/the-historical-role-of-warrants-particularity-and-magistrates/.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). Foreword: Accounting for technological change. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 36, 403-408.

Kerr, O. S. (2014, June 24). Commentary on the Ganias case. The Washington Post.

Kerr, O. S. (2015). Executing warrants for digital evidence: The case for use restrictions on nonresponsive data. Texas Tech Law Review, 48(1), 1-36.

Knapp, M. (2015, July 6). Second circuit grants rehearing in United States V. Ganias [Blog post]. Retrieved from Lawfare website: https://www.lawfareblog.com/second-circuit-grants-rehearing-united-states-v-ganias#.

Kozel, R. J. (2014). The scope of precedent. Michigan Law Review, 113(1), 179-230.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 U.S. 1167 (Mar. 23, 1999).

Lee county man nets 17 1/2 years in federal prison for downloading child pornography on LimeWire. (2011, January 12). Retrieved March 17, 2017, from The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama website: https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/alm/press/2011/2011_01_12_ballard.html.

Levy - Sachs, R., & Archambault, T. (2008). Hurdling toward the future: Navigating electronically stored information through the federal rules of evidence: Lorraine V. Markel America Insurance co. 2008 FDCC winter meeting; Technology and e-commerce/intellectual property section, pp. 6-13. Retrieved from http://www.thefederation.org/documents/10.LevySachs.pdf.

Liles, S., Rogers, M., & Hoebich, M. (2009). [A Survey of the Legal Issues Facing Digital Forensic Experts]. In G. Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances in digital forensics V (Vol. 306, pp. 266-267). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Mantei, C. J. (2011). Pornography and privacy in plain view: Applying the plain view doctrine to computer searches. Arizona Law Review, 53(3), 985-1012. Retrieved from http://arizonalawreview.org/mantei/.

Mestitz, M. (2017). Unpacking digital containers: Extending Riley's reasoning to digital files and subfolders. Stanford Law Review, 69(1), 321-357.

Meyer, D. L. (2009). Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts: What the expanded confrontation clause ruling means for computer forensics and electronic discovery. Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 28(2), 243.

Meyers, M., & Rogers, M. (2004). Computer forensics: The need for standardization and certification. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(2).

Meyers, M., & Rogers, M. (2005). Digital forensics: Meeting the challenges of scientific evidence. In S. Shenoi & M. Pollitt (Eds.), Advances in digital forensics (pp. 43-50). New York, NY: International Federation for Information Processing.

Meyers, M., & Rogers, M. (2006, fall). Computer forensics: The need for standardization and certification. In M. Pollitt & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances in digital forensics (Vol. 194, pp. 42-50). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (June 13, 1966).

Murphy, E. (2014). The mismatch between twenty-first-century forensic evidence and our antiquated criminal justice system. Southern California Law Review, 87(3), 633-672.

Nance, K., & Ryan, D. J. (2011). Legal aspects of digital forensics: A research agenda. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-44), pp. 1-6.

Newman, Z. G., & Ellis, A. (2011, January 25). The reliability, admissibility, and power of electronic evidence. Retrieved from American Bar Association - Section of Litigation website: https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/012511-electronic-evidence.html.

Newman, Z. G., & Ellis, A. (2011, January 25). The reliability, admissibility, and power of electronic evidence. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from Section of Litigation Trial Evidence website: https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/012511-electronic-evidence.html.

Ohm, P. (2005). The fourth amendment right to delete. Harvard Law Review Forum, 119, 10-18.

Ohm, P. (2011). Massive hard drives, general warrants, and the power of magistrate judges. Virginia Law Review, 97, 1-12.

Olmstead v. United States: The constitutional challenges of prohibition enforcement — historical background and documents. (2016). Retrieved August 10, 2016, from History of the Federal Judiciary website: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_olmstead_questions.html.

Re, R. M. (2016). Narrowing Supreme Court precedent from below. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(4), 921-971.

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).

Riley v. California. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 128(1). Retrieved from http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11/riley-v-california/.

Rothstein, B. J., Hedges, R. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (2007). Managing discovery of electronic information: A pocket guide for judges. Retrieved March 27, 2017, from Federal Evidence Review website: http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2008/09-Sept/FJC_%20Managing%20Discovery%20of%20Electronic%20Information.pdf.

Rule 801. Exclusions from hearsay. (2015). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801.

Rule 401. Test for relevant evidence. (2015). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401.

Rule 403. Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons. (2015). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403.

Rule 901. Authenticating or identifying evidence. (2015). Retrieved November 19, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901.

Rule 1003. Admissibility of duplicates. (2015). Retrieved November 19, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1003.

Rule 1002. Requirement of the original. (2015). Retrieved November 19, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1002.

Rule 702. Testimony by expert witnesses. (2015). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from Legal Information Institute website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.

Rummel, J. A. (2011). When warrants uncover digital evidence: The tenth circuit's ruling in United States V. burke. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 36(3), 713-735.

Ryan, D. J., & Shpantzer, G. (2002). Legal aspects of digital forensics. Proceedings: Forensics workshop.

Salgado, R. P. (2013). Fourth amendment search and the power of the hash. Federal Evidence Review. Retrieved from http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2013/02Feb/EE-4thAmSearch-Power%20of%20Hash.pdf.

Spriggs, J. F., & Hansford, T. G. (2001). Explaining the overruling of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1091-1111.

Statistical tables for the federal judiciary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2016, from United States Courts website: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary.

Statistical tables for the federal judiciary - December 2015. (2015, December 31). Retrieved January 17, 2017, from United States Courts website: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary-december-2015.

Statistics & reports. (2015, December). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from United States Courts website: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports.

SWGDE digital & multimedia evidence glossary (Report No. Version 3.0). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.swgde.org/documents/Current%20Documents/SWGDE%20Digital%20and%20Multimedia%20Evidence%20Glossary.

Thomson, L. L. (2013). Mobile devices: New challenges for admissibility of electronic evidence. The SciTech Lawyer, 9(3&4).

United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 18 U.S.C. § 110 (2006 & Supp. 2011).

United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2010).

United States v. Ballard, 448 F. App. 987 (11th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011).

United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011).

United States v. Beasley, 688 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. July 31, 2012).

United States v. Beatty, 437 F. App. 185 (3d Cir. July 14, 2011).

United States v. Benoit, 713 F.3d 1 (10th Cir. Apr. 2, 2013).

United States v. Bershchansky, 788 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. June 5, 2015).

United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2011).

09-4601

United States v. Botta, 405 F. App. 196 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2010).

United States v. Bradley, 488 F. App. 99 (6th Cir. July 12, 2012).

United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. Aug. 3, 2010).

United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. July 17, 2012).

United States v. Burdulis, 753 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. May 23, 2014).

United States v. Burgos, 786 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. May 13, 2015).

United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011).

United States v. Burkhart, 602 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2010).

United States v. Bush, 727 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013).

United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. May 5, 2010).

United States v. Carroll, 750 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014).

United States v. Chase, 717 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. June 25, 2013).

United States v. Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. July 11, 2012).

United States v. Clark, 668 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. Feb. 13, 2012).

United States v. Clark, 685 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. July 16, 2012).

United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2009).

United States v. Connor, 521 F. App. 493 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013).

United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 786 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. May 4, 2015).

United States v. Cotterman, 709 U.S. 952 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2013).

United States v. Cowan, No. 11-15989 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2012).

United States v. Crespo, 645 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. June 8, 2011).

United States v. Crespo-Rios, 645 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. June 8, 2011).

United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2013).

United States v. Darr, 661 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. Nov. 16, 2011).

United States v. Dawson, 425 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2005).

United States v. Diaz, 435 F. App. 329 (5th Cir. July 29, 2011).

United States v. Dixon, 589 F. App. 427 (11th Cir. Oct. 23, 2014).

United States v. Doyle, 650 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. May 23, 2011).

United States v. Dudley, 804 F.3d 506 (1st Cir. Oct. 30, 2015).

United States v. Durdley, 436 F. App. 966 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2011).

United States v. Easterwood, 415 F. App. 883 (10th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011).

United States v. Edens, 380 F. App. 880 (11th Cir. May 26, 2010).

United States v. Edwards, 813 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. Dec. 29, 2015).

United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2014).

United States v. Epps, 570 F. App. 197 (3d Cir. June 26, 2014).

United States v. Evans, 802 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. Sept. 18, 2015).

United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2012).

United States v. Farlow, 681 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. June 1, 2012).

United States v. Figueroa, 793 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. July 17, 2015).

United States v. Fisher, 745 F.3d 200 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014).

United States v. Flyer, 633 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011).

United States v. Franz, 772 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2014).

United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. Oct. 8, 2009).

United States v. Fritz, 453 F. App. 204 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2011).

United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (1st Cir. June 25, 2013).

United States v. Ganias, 725 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014).

United States v. Ganias, 2016 F. App. 9706 (2d Cir. 2016).

United States v. Ganias - second circuit creates a potential 'right to deletion' of imaged hard drives. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 128(743). Retrieved from http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/united-states-v-ganias/.

United States v. Grzybowicz, 747 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2014).

United States v. Gumbs, 562 F. App. 110 (3d Cir. Mar. 28, 2014).

United States v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2005).

United States v. Hampton, 504 F. App. 402 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2012).

United States v. Harrell, 572 F. App. 452 (7th Cir. July 24, 2014).

United States v. Hemetek, 393 F. App. 67 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2010).

United States v. Henderson, 595 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. Feb. 17, 2010).

United States v. Hentzen, 638 F. App. 427 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015).

United States v. Hester, 627 F. App. 867 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2015).

United States v. Hoffmann, 74 Military Justice 542 (N-M.C.C.A. Dec. 11, 2014).

United States v. Houston, 665 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. Jan. 11, 2012).

United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2014).

United States v. Howe, 545 F. App. 64 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2013).

United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. Apr. 8, 2011).

United States v. Husman, 765 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2014).

United States v. Johnson, 537 F. App. 717 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013).

United States v. Johnson, 579 F. App. 920 (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2014).

United States v. Johnston, 789 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. May 26, 2015).

United States v. Joubert, 778 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 2015).

United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. Feb. 29, 2012).

United States v. Keith, 440 F. App. 503 (7th Cir. Oct. 4, 2011).

United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012).

United States v. Killingbeck, 616 F. App. 14 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2015).

United States v. Kinison, 710 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2013).

United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. Nov. 17, 2010).

United States v. Konn, 634 F. App. 818 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2015).

Criminal Frequency Mac Os Download

United States v. Kornhauser, 519 F. App. 41 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2013).

United States v. Krueger, 809 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. Nov. 10, 2015).

United States v. Krupa, 658 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2011).

United States v. Landsdown, 735 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. Nov. 7, 2013).

United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. May 4, 2011).

United States v. Larman, 547 F. App. 475 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2013).

United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2012).

United States v. Leet, 406 F. App. 830 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 2010).

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (July 5, 1984).

United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. June 18, 2015).

United States v. Lovvorn, 524 F. App. 485 (11th Cir. July 25, 2013).

United States v. Lowe, 795 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. July 28, 2015).

United States v. Lynn, 636 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. May 31, 2011).

United States v. Majeroni, 784 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. Apr. 27, 2015).

United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2014).

United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. Jan. 29, 2002).

United States v. McClellan, 792 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. July 6, 2015).

United States v. McGlothlin, 391 F. App. 542 (7th Cir. July 28, 2010).

United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010).

United States v. Merz, 396 F. App. 838 (3d Cir. Oct. 12, 2010).

United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. Mar. 1, 2011).

United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2011).

United States v. Myers, 560 F. App. 184 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2014).

United States v. Nance, 767 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. Sept. 23, 2014).

United States v. Needham, 718 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. June 14, 2013).

Criminal Frequency Mac Os Catalina

United States v. Norman, 448 F. App. 895 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2011).

United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2011).

United States v. Orisakwe, 624 F. App. 149 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2015).

United States v. Oufnac, 449 F. App. 472 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2011).

United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. Nov. 21, 2012).

United States v. Pelland, 494 F. App. 475 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2012).

United States v. Penton, 380 F. App. 818 (11th Cir. May 25, 2010).

United States v. Pickett, 602 F. App. 774 (11th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015).

United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Apr. 6, 2011).

United States v. Pirosko, 787 F. App. 358 (6th Cir. July 16, 2015).

United States v. Plavcak, 411 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. June 6, 2005).

United States v. Price, 582 F. App. 846 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2014).

United States v. Pruitt, 638 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2011).

United States v. Ransfer, 749 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. Apr. 14, 2014).

United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2015).

United States v. Reichling, 781 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015).

United States v. Reiilly, 662 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2011).

United States v. Rendon, 607 F.3d 982 (4th Cir. June 17, 2010).

United States v. Renigar, 613 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. July 13, 2010).

United States v. Reynolds, 626 F. App. 610 (6th Cir. Sept. 11, 2015).

United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. June 11, 2010).

United States v. Robertson, 560 F. App. 626 (8th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014).

United States v. Roetcisoender, 792 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. July 2, 2015).

United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2010).

United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2013).

United States v. Russo, 408 F. App. 753 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011).

United States v. Salva-Morales, 660 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. Oct. 31, 2011).

United States v. Schaff, 454 F. App. 880 (11th Cir. Jan. 17, 2012).

United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2013).

United States v. Schwinn, 376 F. App. 974 (11th Cir. Apr. 28, 2010).

United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2013).

United States v. Seiver, 692 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2012).

United States v. Sensi, 542 F. App. 8 (2d Cir. Sept. 20, 2013).

United States v. Seymour, 598 F. App. 867 (10th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015).

United States v. Shelabarger, 770 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 2014).

United States v. Sims, 603 F. App. 479 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2015).

United States v. South, 359 F. App. 960 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010).

United States v. Springstead, 526 F. App. 168 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2013).

United States v. Stanley, 533 F. App. 325 (4th Cir. July 19, 2013).

United States v. Steele, 595 F. App. 208 (4th Cir. Dec. 24, 2014).

United States v. Strausbaugh, 534 F. App. 178 (3d Cir. Aug. 9, 2013).

United States v. Stringer, 739 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. Jan. 6, 2014).

United States v. Suing, 712 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2013).

United States v. Syed, 616 F. App. 973 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2015).

United States v. Talley, 392 F. App. 129 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2010).

United States v. Terry, 522 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2008).

United States v. Thomas, 788 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. June 11, 2015).

United States v. Trepanier, 576 F. App. 531 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2014).

United States v. Vallimont, 378 F. App. 972 (11th Cir. May 11, 2010).

United States v. Vanbrackle, 397 F. App. 557 (11th Cir. Sept. 22, 2010).

United States v. Vonneida, 601 F. App. 38 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2015).

United States v. Walden, 478 F. App. 571 (11th Cir. May 3, 2012).

United States v. Wellman, 663 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. Dec. 7, 2011).

United States v. Westerlund, 477 F. App. 366 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2012).

United States v. Wheelock, 772 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2014).

United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010).

United States v. Winkler, 639 F.3d 692 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2011).

United States v. Woerner, 703 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. Feb. 22, 2013).

United States v. Wurie, 612 F. Supp. 2d 104 (2009).

Ward, K. B. (2011). The plain (or not so plain) view doctrine: Applying the plain view doctrine to digital seizures. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 79(3), 1163-1187. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38GS5N.

Weinstein, J., & Drake, W. (2014). Public safety, privacy, and particularity: A new approach to search warrants for digital evidence. Electronic Commerce & Law Report, 19, 1-6.

Who does what - judges. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2015, from Inside the Federal Courts website: http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu5a&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/304?opendocument.

Wiesenberger, G. (1992). The Supreme Court and the interpretation of the federal rules of evidence. Ohio State Law Journal, 53(5), 1615-1639. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1811/64620.

Williford v. Texas, 172 2004 Tex. App 309 (Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland 2004).

Wilson, C. (2011, July 11). Digital evidence discrepancies – Casey Anthony trial. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from Digital Detective website: http://www.digital-detective.net/digital-evidence-discrepancies-casey-anthony-trial/.

Wilson, C. (2011, July 11). Digital evidence discrepancies: Casey Anthony trial [Blog post]. Retrieved from Digital Detective website: http://www.digital-detective.net/digital-evidence-discrepancies-casey-anthony-trial/.

Yellon, A. (2009). The fourth amendment's new frontier: Judicial reasoning applying the fourth amendment to electronic communications. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 4(2), 411-437.

Zappala, R. A. (2008). Evidence ESI and the hearsay rule. 2008 FDCC winter meeting, pp. 2-5.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2019.1609

Recommended Citation

Novak, Martin (2020) 'Digital Evidence in Criminal Cases Before the U.S. Courts of Appeal: Trends and Issues for Consideration,' Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 14 , Article 3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2019.1609
Available at: https://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol14/iss4/3

Included in

Computer Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.