1. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Forensic Science Technicians,” Occupational Outlook Handbook. Available at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/forensic-science-technicians.htm (accessed March 15, 2020).
2. Easttom, C., System Forensics, Investigation, and Response. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2013, p. 3.
3. Kaspersky, “Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2019: Statistics,” December 2019. Available at https://securelist.com/kaspersky-security-bulletin-2019-statistics/95475/ (accessed March 15, 2020).
4. Verizon, “2019 Data Breach Investigations Report,” May 2019. Available at https://enterprise.verizon.com/resources/reports/2019-data-breach-investigations-report.pdf (accessed March 15, 2020).
5. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “A Brief History of the FBI,” undated. Available at https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history (accessed March 15, 2020).
6. International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists, “About IACIS,” undated. Available at https://www.iacis.com/about/ (accessed March 15, 2020); Mark Pollitt, “A History of Digital Forensics,” 6th IFIP WG 11.9 International Conference on Digital Forensics, January 2010. Available at https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01060606 (accessed March 15, 2020).
7. Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence, “About Us,” undated. Available at https://www.swgde.org/home (accessed March 15, 2020).
8. Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 225, sec. 447, art. 5-10.
9. Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 338.822.
10. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 703.401, 703.405, 703.407, 703.411.
11. Texas Occupations Code Annotated, sec. 1702.104.
12. North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 74C, sec. 3(b)(17).
13. Virginia Code, title 9.1, sec. 140.
14. American Bar Association, Section of Science & Technology Law, “ABA Adopts Resolution Against Private Investigator Licenses for Computer Forensics,” September 25, 2008. Available at http://cdfs.org/files/Positions/ABA%20Press%20release%20compforensics.pdf (accessed March 15, 2020).
15. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
16. U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 701–706, undated. Available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_of_evidence_-_dec_1_2019_0.pdf (accessed March 15, 2020).
17. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
18. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Digital Evidence: Standards and Principles, Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) International Organization on Digital Evidence (IOCE), IOCE International Principles,” Forensic Science Communications, April 2000, Vol. 2, No. 2. Available at https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2000/swgde.htm (accessed March 15, 2020).
19. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848, codified at U.S. Code Vol. 18, sec. 2510 (2020).
20. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848, codified at U.S. Code Vol. 18, secs. 2510–2523 (2020).
21. Wiretap statutes, U.S. Code Vol. 18, sec. 2510; U.S. Code Vol. 47, sec. 605 (2020).
22. Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute, U.S. Code Vol. 18, sec. 3121 et seq. (2020).
23. United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
24. United States v. Al-Marri, 230 F. Supp.2d 535, 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
25. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
26. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).
27. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (PATRIOT Act), Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001), codified at various sections of the U.S. Code (2020).
28. U.S. Code Vol. 18, sec. 2702(b) (2020).
29. United States v. Mullins, 992 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1993).
30. U.S. Code Vol. 18, sec. 2511(2)(i) (2020).
31. Matt. 7:17-20, The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769; King James Bible Online, 2014. Available at http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (accessed March 15, 2020).
32. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
33. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939).
34. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401.
35. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901.
36. The Sedona Conference, “The Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production,” 19 SEDONA CONF. J. 1 (2018).
37. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801.
38. See United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 230-31 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that printed results from a computerized test were not the statement of a person and are not excluded as hearsay); United States v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1138, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that computer-generated header information is not hearsay).
39. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(6).
40. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1002.
41. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1001(3).
42. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1001(3), Advisory Committee Notes (1972).