To view or not to view: Examining the plain view doctrine and digital evidence

The very nature of digital evidence, defined as evidence stored on any form of magnetic media, makes the proper collection of such evidence an important consideration during seizure. Historically, courts have attempted to apply jurisprudence developed for the physical world to cases involving the cyber world. As a result, confusing guidelines have been created for those who handle computerrelated investigations. This article examined the issue of warrantless searches and seizures of digital evidence justified under the plain view doctrine. Through examination of the Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Carey (1999), and the Virginia district court decision, United States v. Gray (1999), it was determined that proper seizure of digital evidence under the plain view doctrine requires: 1) access to the evidence be obtained legally, 2) the apparent illegal nature of the evidence be immediately known, and 3) the officer cannot abandon their original search.     

To bite or not to bite: Canine apprehensions in a large, suburban police department

There is a dearth of empirical research on the use of police canines. This article examines the use of canines in a large, suburban police department over a six-year period (1993-1998). Use of force reports, canine-apprehension reports, arrest data, and the canine unit's monthly activity reports were reviewed. Five rates were calculated: (1) canine-apprehension rate, (2) canine bite rate, (3) rate of bites resulting in any medical treatment, (4) rate of bites resulting in medical treatment at a hospital, and (5) officer injury rate. Of the suspects apprehended by canines, 14.1 percent were bitten, 9.1 percent received medical attention (on the scene or at a hospital), and 4.8 percent received medical attention at a hospital. The canine bite rate was significantly lower for non-White suspects than for White suspects. The use of rate-based information for the evaluation of policy and procedure concerning the use of police canines is discussed.     

To act or not to act, that is the question: informed consent in a criminal perspective

Some years ago the doctor was seen as the one who "knows better", and it was absolutely unconceivable that the patient could refuse the suggested treatment or even ask any questions about it. Differently, nowadays doctors face demands to keep their patients informed and can even be sued when they act without patient knowledge and consent. On the patient's side this new paradigm does not necessarily legitimate euthanasia--still criminally forbidden in most parts of the world--but allows some kind of personal power over body, health and life, materialized in advance directives. On the doctor's side, it entails a change in the list of good medical practices, imposing the doctrine of informed consent and the prohibition of dysthanasia.     

To block or not to block: European approaches to content regulation,and implications for freedom of expression

Based on the limited effectiveness of state laws, and lack of harmonization at international level a number of states started to introduce policies to block access to Internet content and websites deemed illegal which are situated outside their legal jurisdiction. However, blocking policies are not always subject to due process principles, decisions are not necessarily taken by the courts of law, and often administrative bodies or Internet hotlines run by the private sector decide which content or website should be subject to blocking. Therefore, increasingly, the compatibility of blocking action is questioned with regards to the fundamental right of freedom of expression. This article assesses significant developments at the pan-European level with regards to the development, and implementation of Internet content blocking policies. Adaptation of content blocking policies from certain member states of both the European Union and the Council of Europe will be used to assess the nature and implementation of access blocking policies. It will be argued that there could be a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights if blocking measures or filtering tools are used at state level to silence politically motivated speech on the Internet.     

To admit or not to admit: a comparative constitutional perspective on illegally obtained evidence in Ghana

During criminal investigations, law enforcement agents sometimes flout the law. They extract evidence by torture, illegal wiretapping, unlawful searches and seizures among other illegitimate means. In the United States, such illegally (or improperly) obtained evidence is inadmissible in criminal trials subject to some exceptions. The reverse position generally obtains under English law. In Ghana, because the Supreme Court has yet to make a definitive pronouncement on the issue, conflicting viewpoints exist. In this article, we analyse the relevant constitutional, statutory and case law principles with the view to clarifying the admissibility or otherwise of illegally obtained evidence in Ghanaian courts.