What are Guidelines for Evidence Collection?

Article Details
  • Written By: Alexis W.
  • Edited By: Heather Bailey
  • Images By: Oocoskun, Corepics, Shawn Hempel, Frog-Travel, Tex Hex
  • Last Modified Date: 13 March 2019
  • Copyright Protected:
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
The name Fido became popular thanks to Abraham Lincoln, who gave one of his dogs that name, which means "faithful."   more...

March 25 ,  1967 :  Martin Luther King, Jr. led 5,000 antiwar demonstrators in a march in Chicago.  more...

The guidelines for evidence collection refer to the legal rules of a jurisdiction that dictate how law enforcement officials may collect evidence to prove the commission of a crime or the commission of a tort. Evidence can constitute anything used to demonstrate an accused individual's guilt in criminal activity or in a civil case. Different rules apply for evidence collection in criminal versus civil trials within the United States, as well as in many other countries.

In a criminal case, evidence is anything that proves one of the elements of a crime. Evidence in a criminal case may be the gun used in a killing, a vehicle with a spot of blood in it, DNA evidence, or a bag of drugs taken from an accused drug dealer's home. It can also be something that alone seems innocent, such as an ATM receipt, but which proves intent, motive, or some other aspect of a crime the prosecutor must prove.

Within the United States, the rules for evidence collection in a criminal case are set forth in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


This means that, when collecting evidence, law enforcement must obtain a warrant from a judge after demonstrating probable cause. Other evidence rules may also apply that limit evidence collection. For example, rules within the United States dictate that anything found, even indirectly, as the result of an unlawful search or confession is excluded from being heard in court, as it is "fruit of the tainted tree."

In a civil case, the evidence collection rules are set by rules relating to discovery. Discovery is the process by which the plaintiff and defendant exchange information necessary to either prove the case or defend against the accusations. The rules for discovery generally stipulate that requests for documents must be reasonable; for example, in an attempt to prove wrongful termination, an individual could reasonably request that the defendant turn over her performance reviews for the past ten years, but the individual could not request that the company turn over every performance review written for every single employee in the 100-year history of the company, as such a request would be unreasonable.


You might also Like


Discuss this Article

Post 3

Does anyone here think that the law against unreasonable search and seizure or the procedure required for attaining a search warrant, makes it easier for criminals to hide or destroy evidence?

I sometimes think that by the time that a search warrant is prepared, a criminal will have taken some precautions to destroy or hide evidence that could be used against him or her in court. So although these laws protect our privacy and rights, they make things a little bit difficult when it comes to criminal investigation and punishment.

Post 2

@literally45-- Well, I guess in that case, that evidence cannot be submitted to court. I'm sure that some type of action would be taken against those officials as well.

I actually do not know a lot about how these processes work. But I don't think that any official would intentionally do something to make evidence unusable.

I'm sure that small mistakes happen from time to time but might not be an issue. On crime shows for example, sometimes they show that a law enforcement officer's fingerprint is found on a piece of evidence. But they can easily discount that during fingerprint and DNA testing considering it a mistake. But truly professional officials won't make such silly mistakes.

Post 1

What if those on duty do not collect evidence according to the guidelines, or make a mistake during the collection?

Post your comments

Post Anonymously


forgot password?