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.

To maintain the integrity of law enforcement, 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.

To safeguard their integrity, the documents gathered must usually be identified. In most systems an official receipt is issued to the owner of the documents; that person has 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. Following are 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 or any other document used in an election. They may also include the personnel records of the electoral management body, 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 hold elections. 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 the United States, for example, seizing electoral records may deprive state authorities of materials required to tabulate, collect and certify election results. The law prohibits any action that deprives the state of records it needs to perform these tasks. [1]

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.

NOTES

[1] Donsanto, Craig, “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, 1996, p. 9.