Using Digital Forensics in Policing, 2018-2022

This project has examined the application of digital forensics (DF) in police investigations and the operational, organisational and professional opportunities and challenges this presents. The objectives of the project have been: 1. To appraise current DF provision and processes in four DFUs that are part of a forensic collaboration – both individually and as part of a regional framework – to understand the organisation and use of DF in investigations and identify best practices locally and regionally 2. To observe how DF processes and practices in the four units observed compare with those of other DFUs nationally 3. To understand how DF contributes to the analysis and interpretation of digital trace and how police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and defence teams use digital evidence 3. To assess how occupational cultures, organisational arrangements and regulatory requirements impact on inter and intra-professional exchanges and understandings of professionalism and expertise 4. To examine how DF fits in the wider delivery of forensic service support for the four forces, together with other in-house services such as crime scene investigation, and explore this process nationally 5. To document the concerns and expectations of key stakeholders, inform policy developments and support the development of local, regional and national approaches to the application of DF in policing Some of the areas the project has focused on consist of the management of digital trace within and outside DF units (DFUs), the impact of ISO17025 accreditation, the rise in demand for mobile phone analysis, risk assessment procedures, welfare and wellbeing of staff, professional development and support, and training. The implications of the findings are currently explored through ongoing analysis. Common themes raised by the DF practitioners interviewed included (1) change fatigue following the start of the collaboration and subsequent processes of accreditation, (2) sparse resources, (3) officers’ partial understanding of how DF can contribute to investigations and their mixed ability to present a digital investigative strategy when submitting exhibits for DF analysis, (4) wellbeing, burnout and stress, (5) the lack of recognition for the service provided, (6) professional development and career progression opportunities and (7) cultural and organisational tensions as part of working in collaboration. Equally, the officers interviewed outlined a number of related issues pertaining to: a) delays in the processing of digital trace, b) the impact of accreditation on DF service delivery, c) disclosure processes, d) CPS pressures and queries for additional evidence at very short notice, e) the lack of assistance for DMIs and CAs, f) senior investigating officers’ and police management’s uneven understanding of DF and the investment it required, g) frontline officers lack of digital awareness, especially when identifying, preserving and using digital trace and h) expectations working within the police service.