Any police photographs are considered forensic if they are recorded and sworn by the police photographer as evidence authored under law.
The content of forensic photography can be simple and obvious, such as a tire skid mark to measure the speed of a car crash to weapon identification. The impact and characteristic of the wound or mortal causation from that weapon is presented as evidence in lieu of the actual victim. The weapon itself will be photographed and logged as evidence but the physical weapon may also be introduced.
Bruises from a fist fight or domestic violence or the hole in a window caused by a angry guy with a baseball bat are all forensic photos when taken by a legally sworn officer of the law.
Also, surveillance photos of a suspect or a security camera documenting a beer store robbery can be introduced as forensic when sworn by the owner and then used as evidence.
The owner would need to appear and swear under the law that the footage was not tampered with and affirm its provenance.
Forensic shooting must be a pure documentation; clear, strobe lighted often with scale markers and without any personal influence or aesthetic. Typically cops who have interest in photography are trained to a limited and standardized shooting protocol for this highly disciplined and unemotional photography discipline.
I’m not qualified to provide the current legal chain of custody or specific provenance procedures but this should give you a general understanding of what it entails. I’m sure there are classes in law enforcement specifically about digital forensic photographic documentation.
Answers & Comments
Answer:
Any police photographs are considered forensic if they are recorded and sworn by the police photographer as evidence authored under law.
The content of forensic photography can be simple and obvious, such as a tire skid mark to measure the speed of a car crash to weapon identification. The impact and characteristic of the wound or mortal causation from that weapon is presented as evidence in lieu of the actual victim. The weapon itself will be photographed and logged as evidence but the physical weapon may also be introduced.
Bruises from a fist fight or domestic violence or the hole in a window caused by a angry guy with a baseball bat are all forensic photos when taken by a legally sworn officer of the law.
Also, surveillance photos of a suspect or a security camera documenting a beer store robbery can be introduced as forensic when sworn by the owner and then used as evidence.
The owner would need to appear and swear under the law that the footage was not tampered with and affirm its provenance.
Forensic shooting must be a pure documentation; clear, strobe lighted often with scale markers and without any personal influence or aesthetic. Typically cops who have interest in photography are trained to a limited and standardized shooting protocol for this highly disciplined and unemotional photography discipline.
I’m not qualified to provide the current legal chain of custody or specific provenance procedures but this should give you a general understanding of what it entails. I’m sure there are classes in law enforcement specifically about digital forensic photographic documentation.