The confusion concerning the Digital and Multimedia Evidence Sub-Disciplines suggests the Discipline should be revised.

In the Controlled Substances Discipline, the analysis of plant material, solid dosage material (pills and capsules), liquid from syringes, and general unknowns are routine tasks. However, these tasks involve analyzing different types of samples, which require different training for the examiners, the use of different instrumentation and equipment, and different analytical practices.

For instance, when a syringe containing a liquid is submitted for analysis, the examiner will take universal precautions in handling the syringe, remove the liquid, perform an acid/base extraction into an organic solvent, evaporate the organic solvent to a small volume, and inject an aliquot into a Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer. Once the mass spectrum(s) of the substance(s) contained in the syringe have been determined, the examiner can search a library of compounds to identify the substance(s).

If we were to use the current Digital and Multimedia Evidence Discipline as the example, Controlled Substances would be expected to have several sub-disciplines, such as “Plant Material,” “Solid Dosage,” “Liquid Analysis,” or “General Unknowns” to account for the diversity of sample types submitted for analysis. The ASCLD/LAB accreditation program does not list any sub-disciplines under its Controlled Substances Discipline. Rightly so, since the examination process involves searching for and identifying the presence/absence of controlled substances, regardless of the sample type(s). Although different analytical practices, procedures, and instruments are utilized, the examiner’s training program is all inclusive. The key element is that the examiner is trained how to appropriately handle the different samples, how to prepare them for analysis, and how to use the different instruments and equipment to obtain results.

In many instances, what occurs in the Controlled Substances Discipline is analogous to practices in the Digital and Multimedia Evidence Discipline. In the previous column, an example examination involving computer hard drives was discussed. The Video Examiner forensically: (1) copied, hashed, and examined the hard drives (Computer Forensics); (2) extracted and analyzed the digital video files (Video Analysis); (3) analyzed the digital audio tracks (Audio Analysis); and (4) compared images from the video files to images of the weapon and to the suspects on the digital photographs (Image Analysis). An analogy to the Controlled Substances discipline was that the Video Examiner received specific training to conduct the analysis in all four areas. The analysis was conducted on digital media using specialized instrumentation and equipment, all of which was computer controlled. Available software and hardware allows an examiner to analyze digital video files, enhance both the video and audio, and to capture any potential probative images. Once this has been done, the examiner can easily review the images and render determinations and opinions.

Readdressing the Discipline
ASCLD/LAB has been accrediting the Digital and Multimedia Evidence Discipline since 2003. Up to that time, there was no body of information or expertise within ASCLD or ASCLD/LAB pertaining to the nuances of digital media and how the discipline should be defined for accreditation purposes. Appropriately at that time, ASCLD and ASCLD/LAB accepted and adopted the recommendations of SWGDE for the discipline name and the four sub-disciplines. However, what seemed appropriate in 2003 may no longer be appropriate in 2010. A considerable number of inspections and assessments have been conducted in the Digital and Multimedia Evidence Discipline since 2003 and with each one, further knowledge and experience is gained by ASCLD/LAB and its assessors.

In the late 1990s, the primary digital items being analyzed by laboratories were computers and hard drives, thus the moniker Computer Forensics encapsulated the type of analysis being performed. This is no longer the case and “Computer Forensics” is itself a misnomer that does not represent the extent of the analyses being performed under its name. Today, all types of digital media, such as cellular telephones, digital cameras, secure digital cards, and so forth are analyzed, not just computers as the name implies. Similarly, one of the first steps in analyzing analog media is to generally convert it to a digital format. The important point is that all the data being analyzed is digital, regardless of the media on/in which it resides. Over the past six years, the evolvement of accreditation in the Digital and Multimedia Evidence Discipline has reached a new level of understanding. Currently, at the state and local level, many forensic laboratories offer services in Computer Forensics, but very few offer services in Forensic Audio, Image Analysis, or Video Analysis. In retrospect, the current implementation of the discipline and its four sub-disciplines is and continues to be problematic in determining where one sub-discipline ends and another one begins. They continually seem to overlap one another. Although it may not be perceived as a popular decision, it seems readily apparent that ASCLD and ASCLD/LAB should reexamine its original acceptance of the discipline as it currently exists and consider a revision.