When evidence is submitted to a lab for analysis, the submitter has the option to submit the evidence as "Urgent" or "Rushed." This normally occurs when the evidence is known to have a quick turnaround (i.e. the case's scheduled court date occurs within a few days, or the evidence is needed to execute a search warrant, etc.). Indicating something as "Urgent" evidence requires examiners/analysts to push that evidence to the front of the analysis queue; that is, that evidence will be examined/analyzed next before continuing to work on any backlog cases/investigations.
An urgent submission which goes through the laboratory will follow an identical process to that of any submission, except in some cases urgent evidence may bypass a standard initial destination of an evidence vault, instead heading straight to processing. The chain of custody would need to accommodate this omitted visit, while still maintaining the integrity of the evidence's handling.
Narrative
An investigator receives evidence that a submitter has marked as urgent. The following table shows the timeline of this exhibit's processing, jumping straight to a processing kiosk instead of the evidence vault.
Date / Time
Action
01/01/2019 14:00
Exhibit submitted for Kiosk examination
01/01/2019 14:05
Exhibit seal checks (passed) & Exhibit receipted in lab
01/01/2019 14:05
Exhibit assigned to Kiosk technician
01/01/2019 14:15
Sealed Exhibit Photographed
01/01/2019 14:20
Exhibit Unsealed
01/01/2019 14:21
Unsealed Exhibit Photographed
01/01/2019 14:25
Exhibit Connected to Kiosk & process started
01/01/2019 14:55
Exhibit Disconnected from Kiosk
01/01/2019 15:00
Exhibit Resealed
01/01/2019 15:03
Picture selected, via kiosk review screen, from those extracted from exhibit
01/01/2019 15:05
Report DVD Generated as associated exhibit
01/01/2019 15:10
DVD Report sealed
01/01/2019 15:15
Witness statement completed
01/01/2019 15:20
Sealed Exhibit handed the OIC & Transfer documentation signed
Discussion: Kiosk Investigations
For a kiosk investigation the laboratory will not be part of the process, instead the interaction will be directly between the kiosk trained submitting officer and the kiosk used, and will follow a known sequence of steps either directed by a documented instruction/script or directly by the on-screen step processes built into the kiosk itself.
Therefore the only chain of custody information will be that which recorded on the kiosk during the sequence of steps, and would be along the lines of:
Date/Time Exhibit unsealed
Date/Time Exhibit photographs taken by officer are uploaded
Date/Time [Sub-]Exhibit (e.g. SIM Card, MemoryCard, Phone, etc.) is connected to kiosk
Date/Time of processes started & completed by Kiosk (may contain numerous entries depending on level of detail provided by vendor)
Date/Time [Sub-]Exhibit was disconnected from Kiosk
Date/Time Exhibit was resealed
and would be automatically generated by the kiosk as part of the data exported in CASE format within the Report package contained on the DVD in the final steps above. The idea being that the kiosk activity could subsequently be imported into a Case Management System for review and quality control.
Note: The above chain of custody details (i.e. unseal, photograph, connect to forensic tool, image, process, disconnect from forensic tool, reseal) are effectively identical to the chain of custody typically used within the laboratory environment.
Illustrative Data and Queries
The queries in this section, and their computed results, are backed by the data in urgent_evidence.json.
Events, locations, tools, and people represented in this and other CASE narratives are presented, and at many times created, for illustration purposes only and do not necessarily represent real events, locations, tools, or people.
Action timeline
According to the CASE report, what is the timeline of all of the recorded actions? (SPARQL source)
?lStartTime
?lEndTime
?lDescription
0
2019-01-01 14:00:00+00:00
Exhibit submitted for Kiosk examination
1
2019-01-01 14:05:00+00:00
Exhibit seal checks (passed) & Exhibit receipted in lab
2
2019-01-01 14:05:30+00:00
Exhibit assigned to Kiosk technician
3
2019-01-01 14:15:00+00:00
Sealed Exhibit Photographed
4
2019-01-01 14:20:00+00:00
Exhibit Unsealed
5
2019-01-01 14:21:00+00:00
Unsealed Exhibit Photographed
6
2019-01-01 14:25:00+00:00
2019-01-01 14:55:00+00:00
Exhibit Connected to Kiosk & process started; exhibit disconnected at conclusion
7
2019-01-01 15:00:00+00:00
Exhibit Resealed
8
2019-01-01 15:03:00+00:00
Picture selected, via kiosk review screen, from those extracted from exhibit
9
2019-01-01 15:05:00+00:00
Report DVD Generated as associated exhibit
10
2019-01-01 15:10:00+00:00
DVD Report sealed
11
2019-01-01 15:15:00+00:00
Witness statement completed
12
2019-01-01 15:20:00+00:00
Sealed Exhibit handed the OIC & Transfer documentation signed
Locations
According to the CASE report, in what locations did the investigative actions take place? (SPARQL source)
?nLocation
?lRoomId
?lDescription
0
http://example.org/kb/location-uuid-1
1-001
(Room 1-001) Police station intake lab
1
http://example.org/kb/location-uuid-3
2-013
(Room 2-013) Police station evidence processing lab
2
http://example.org/kb/location-uuid-4
3-022
(Room 3-022) Desk of Officer Hudson
Of note:
CASE and UCO do not yet implement the concept of roomId. It is provided here to assist with future concept development.
The evidence vault—room B-001—is not among these locations. The urgency of the processing caused that room to be bypassed.
The witness statement is produced by the analyzing officer, following UK Crown Prosecution Service Guidance. (Were this a civil case, UK Ministry of Justice Guidance would have been followed instead.) The officer's signed statement describes the officer's experience, role, and training, and describes and accompanies the chain of custody and analysis results up through the kiosk's processing conclusion in the evidence processing lab.
Investigative personae
According to the provenance chain, who was involved in handling this evidence? (SPARQL source)
The evidence exhibit number is EXH-20190101-7.
?lLastName
0
Hudson
1
Smith
2
Walker
Photographs of exhibits
What photographs were taken of the exhibit and sub-exhibits? (SPARQL source)
Among the artifacts extracted from the device, a picture file IMG_1863.jpg was extracted. Starting at initial evidence submission, what actions were taken to extract that file?
This query inspects the derivation chains of artifacts. A supplemental graph of a predicate adapted from the W3C PROV Ontology creates a chain of InvestigativeActions that can be analyzed with a path operator. (SPARQL source for wasInformedBy.)
That graph is then analyzed with the * path operator. The query uses * instead of + in order to include the action that generated the file as well. (SPARQL source)
?nDerivingAction
?lDescription
0
http://example.org/kb/action-uuid-1
Exhibit submitted for Kiosk examination
1
http://example.org/kb/action-uuid-3
Exhibit assigned to Kiosk technician
2
http://example.org/kb/action-uuid-7
Exhibit Connected to Kiosk & process started; exhibit disconnected at conclusion
Initial Evidence Submission
What objects were the initial evidence submission(s) into the ProvenanceRecord chain? (SPARQL source)
?nSourceObject
0
http://example.org/kb/subject-device-uuid-1
Selection from Automated Exhibit Extraction
Several picture files were extracted by the kiosk, tracked in the internal process-record exhibit EXH-20190101-7-KioskReport. Some of them were selected by the investigator for presentation in exhibit EXH-20190101-7-B, after visual review of just some of the files. Which were extracted, displayed, and selected? (SPARQL source)