Protecting the integrity of evidence collected is vital in law enforcement. If the integrity of the evidence is in doubt, its use in legal proceedings could be jeopardized, possibly allowing a guilty person to escape prosecution.

Countries with a history of the rule of law have a framework of rules and procedures stipulating how evidence is to be collected, used and preserved. Evidence is admissible in court only if the rules have been followed. The accused have procedural rights, giving them protection from evidence tampering to manipulate the outcome of an investigation or trial. It is important that anyone who handles evidence during an investigation know and follow the rules concerning the admissibility of evidence.

Legal Seizure of Physical Evidence

Specific procedures must be followed for obtaining physical evidence. The investigator must first inform the suspect of his or her rights. Most legal systems give suspects the right not to incriminate themselves. They are therefore not required to provide to the investigators information or evidence that could be used against them. If a suspect voluntarily provides requested documents or information even though not required to do so, the investigators are required to make sure that the suspect signs a statement waiving this right. The requirement ensures that suspects understand their rights and cannot later claim to have been deprived of them.

If a person refuses to provide information, investigators may apply to a judge for a search warrant. The warrant allows investigators to search for evidence.

The documents gathered must usually be identified to safeguard their integrity. In most systems an official receipt is issued to the owner of the documents. That person may also have the right to keep a copy of the seized papers.

Protection of Evidence

Proper procedures for handling and storing evidence can help ensure that it is not tampered with or lost. The following is an example of procedures used to protect evidence:

• Identify evidence as soon as it is seized. Each piece of evidence is given a specific reference number and described. Also to be noted is the date and time when each piece was seized. A receipt is given to the person who provided the evidence and a copy is kept on file.
• Seal original documents and other evidence in boxes or containers, and use only photocopies for the investigation.
• Keep an inventory of the evidence. The inventory lists the reference number of each piece, the number of the box in which it is locked and the location where the box is stored. Evidence should be stored in a fireproof location with limited and controlled access.
• Keep written records of the handling and movement of evidence, and of the persons who have had access to it. A control sheet should be attached to each piece of evidence, and any activity should be recorded by the person in charge of the location where the evidence is stored. The control sheet should show the date and time when material was removed, the name of the person taking the material, and the reason for the removal. The record must be signed by the person in charge of the storage room and the person taking the material.
• Keep records on the handling of evidence separate from the complaint file.
• Return evidence to the owners at the end of the process. The owners sign a receipt certifying what was returned. They are given a copy of the receipt and the original is kept on file.

Seizure of Electoral Records

Electoral records include the voter registry, applications for absentee ballots, tally sheets, protocols from the tabulations, or any other document used in an election. They may also include the administrative records of the electoral management body, including personnel files, time sheets, official vehicle logbooks, warehouse inventory books or other documents used for election administration.

The problem with seizing electoral records is that they are usually needed to conduct the elections successfully. There could be a conflict between the need to collect evidence and the need to retain these documents in order to successfully complete the electoral process.

In other cases, the courts or other institutions may determine whether an allegation is serious enough to compromise the entire electoral process. In these cases, the need to ensure the integrity of the process through an immediate investigation might take priority over immediate election needs.

In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia parliamentary elections in 2002 – the first after a relatively short but intense civil war between ethnic Albanian and ethnic Macedonian factions – occurred without major incident.  (In large part this was due to adoption of a new method of election – regional proportional representation – which tended to lessen the political rivalries between parties representing the different ethnic groups.)  The results on the ethnic Macedonian side favored the Social Democratic (SDSM) party, and the Prime Minister, from the governing Nationalist party (VMRO-DPMNE), initially accepted the party’s defeat. Soon thereafter, however, the Ministry of Interior (MoI), under its minister, Ljube Boŝkoski,[1] began a series of investigations that put considerable pressure on election administrators.

With respect to the latter, uniformed and non-uniformed police, some of whom were heavily armed, demanded to enter and search the printing house for the ballot-papers in the elections. VMRO-DPMNE officials alleged that extra ballot-papers had been printed, and that other election materials may have been destroyed. Criminal referrals against senior electoral officials, including the SEC Chair, followed.  Additional demands were also made for electoral documents, including minutes of SEC meetings.  These actions were characterized by international observers as an attempt to influence the electoral process through intimidation, and an abuse of State power for partisan purposes.[2]  They were also characterized by the observers as violations of the OSCE/ODIHR Copenhagen Document, 1990.[3]