О цифровых доказательствах в зарубежном уголовном процессе
Ключевые слова:
цифровые доказательства, Интерпол, ЕС, США, допустимость доказательств в электронной форме
Аннотация
Статья посвящена проблемам цифровых доказательств (далее ЦД) в уголовном процессе. Автор анализирует зарубежные подходы к доказательства в электронной форме, рассматривает существующие подходы, выявляет проблемы использования ЦД в уголовном судопроизводстве.
Скачивания
Данные скачивания пока не доступны.
Литература
1. Баранов А.М. Электронные доказательства: иллюзия уголовного процесса XXI в. // Уголовная юстиция. 2019. № 13. С. 63-69.
2. Baranov A.M. Electronic evidence: the illusion of criminal procedure in the 21st century // Criminal Justice. 2019.No. 13.P. 63-69.
3. Бирюков П.Н. Нормы международного уголовно-процессуального права в правовой системе Российской Федерации. – Воронеж: ВГУ, 2000. – 228 с.
4. Biriukov P.N. The norms of international criminal procedure law in the legal system of the Russian Federation. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2000. - 228 p.
5. Бирюков П.Н. Международное уголовно-процессуальное право и правовая система Российской Федерации (теоретические проблемы). Дисс. … доктора юридических наук. - Воронежский государственный университет. Воронеж, 2001. – 368 с.
6. Biriukov P.N. International criminal procedural law and the legal system of the Russian Federation (theoretical problems). Diss. … Doctors of legal sciences. – Voronezh State University. Voronezh, 2001. – 368 p.
7. Бирюков П.Н. О доказательствах в уголовном процессе США // Юридические стандарты государственной власти и правоохранительной деятельности: построение, организация, осуществление, эффективность. Материалы Международной научно-практической конференции, посвященной 100-летнему юбилею юридического факультета Воронежского государственного университета (Воронеж, 15–16 ноября 2018 г.) : в 2 ч. / под ред. Ю. Н. Старилова, О. С. Рогачевой. – Воронеж : Издательский дом ВГУ, 2019. Ч. 2. С. 69-76.
8. Biriukov P.N. On evidence in the US criminal process // Legal standards of state power and law enforcement: construction, organization, implementation, efficiency. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Law Faculty of Voronezh State University (Voronezh, November 15-16, 2018) : in 2 р. / ed. Yu. N. Starilova, O.S. Rogacheva. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University Publishing House, 2019. Part 2. P. 69-76.
9. Гаврилин Ю. В. Электронные носители информации в уголовном судопроизводстве // Труды Академии управления МВД России. 2017. № 4 (44). С. 47-59.
10. Gavrilin Yu.V. Electronic data carriers in criminal proceedings // Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2017. № 4 (44). S. 47-59.
11. Костенко Р.И., Петрова О.А. Проблемы изъятия электронных носителей информации в отечественном уголовном процессе // Юридический вестник Кубанского государственного университета.. 2021. № 1. С. 62-72.
12. Kostenko R.I., Petrova O.A. Problems of confiscation of electronic media in the domestic criminal process // Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2021. № 1. P. 62-72.
13. Курс уголовного процесса / под ред. проф. Л. В. Головко. – 3е изд. – М. : Статут, 2021. - 1328 с.
14. Course of criminal procedure / ed. prof. L. V. Golovko. – 3rd ed. – M.: Statut, 2021. – 1328 p.
15. Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters // URL
16. Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings // COM/2018/226 final - 2018/0107 (COD).
17. Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters // URL
18. SIRIUS EU. Digital evidence situation report - 2nd Annual report // URL
19. Das Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz – NetzDG // URL
20. Das Gesetz zur Bekämpfung des Rechtsextremismus und der Hasskriminalität // URL
21. Court of Appeals of Antwerp, judgment of 15 November 2017 // URL
22. Federal Civil Procedure Rules // URL
23. Federal Rules of Evidence 2020 // URL
24. US v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir. 1977) // URL
25. US v. Vela, 673 F.2d 86, 90 // URL
26. US v. Bonallo, 858 F.2d 1427, 1430-32 (9th Cir. 1998) // URL
27. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 S. Ct. 321 (1987) // URL
28. Aguimatang v. California State Lottery (1991) // URL
29. Orange County, Florida On October 14, 2008, Casey Anthony // URL
30. State v. Schroeder, 613 NW 2d 911 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2000 // URL
31. Adams, R. Val Hobbs, Graham Mann, The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM): A process model for digital forensic practice. Murdoch University, 2013 // URL
32. Atkinson, J. S. Proof is not binary: The pace and complexity of computer systems and the challenges digital evidence poses to the legal system // Birkbeck Law Review 2014. № 2 (2), р. 245-261.
33. Bagley, W. A. Don’t be evil: The fourth amendment in the age of google, national security, and digital papers and effects // Albany Law Journal of Science Technology. 2011. № 21 (1), р. 153-192.
34. Boone, Ch.; Rankin, B. Ross Harris defense reveals frustrations with judge in hearing for new trial // The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2020. December 14.
35. Carrier, Brian D. Basic Digital Forensic Investigation Concepts. 2006. 7 June.
36. Casey, E. Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, Second Edition. Elsevier, Academic Press, 2004. – 688 р.
37. Digital Evidence and the U.S. Criminal Justice System Identifying Technology and Other Needs to More Effectively Acquire and Utilize Digital Evidence / by Sean E. Goodison, Robert C. Davis, Brian A. Jackson // URL
38. Evidence: The Best-evidence Rule. Law Library. American Law and Legal Information // URL
39. Frieden, J. D., & Murray, L. M. The admissibility of electronic evidence under the federal rules of evidence // Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. 2011. XVII (2). р. 1-40.
40. Friess, N. When rummaging goes digital: Fourth amendment particularity and stored e-mail surveillance // Nebraska Law Journal. 2013. № 90(4), р. 972-1016;
41. Frost, A. Inferiority complex: Should state courts follow lower federal court precedent on the meaning of federal law? // Vanderbilt Law Review. 2015. № 68, р. 53-103.
42. Galves, F., & Galves, C. Ensuring the admissibility of electronic forensic evidence and enhancing its probative value at trial // Criminal Justice Magazine. 2004. № 19 (1). Р. 37-49.
43. Garfinkel, S. L. Digital forensics research: The next 10 years // Digital Investigation, 2010. № 7 (Supplemental). Р. 64-73
44. Garfinkel, S. L. Digital forensics // American Scientist. 2013. № 101(5), р. 370; URL
45. Garrie, D. B., & Morrissy, J. D. Digital forensic evidence in the courtroom: Understanding content and quality // Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 2014. № 12(2), 121-128.
46. Gershowitz, A. M. The post-riley search warrant: Search protocols and particularity in cell phone searches // Vanderbilt Law Review. 2016. № 69 (3), р. 585-638.
47. Goldfoot, J. The physical computer and the fourth amendment // Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law. 2011. № 16(1). Р. 112-168.
48. Grimm, P. D. Authenticating digital evidence // GP Solo. 2014. № 31(5). Р. 47-49.
49. Carrier, B. Defining digital forensic examination and analysis tools // International Journal of Digital Evidence. 2003. № 1, р. 1-12.
50. e-Evidence for EU legal practitioners 2021-2022 // URL
51. Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. Digital evidence and the U.S. criminal justice system. Research Report № RR-890-NIJ. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015.
52. Handbook of Digital Forensics and Investigation / Various, Eoghan Casey (ed.). Academic Press, 2009. - 567 p.
53. Hart, A. In court, digital evidence can shine or fizzle // The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2014. July 26.
54. Hooper; Ormerod; Murphy; et al. (eds.). Blackstone's Criminal Practice. Oxford, 2008. - 2285 p.
55. Interactive Tool for Ranking Digital Evidence Needs / by Brian A. Jackson, Dulani Woods // URL.
56. Novak, M. Digital Evidence in Criminal Cases Before the U.S. Courts of Appeal: Trends and Issues for Consideration // Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law. 2020. Vol. 14. № 4. Article 3. Р. 1-43.
57. Rankin, B. Ross Harris' hot car murder appeal still a work in progress // The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2019. September 3.
58. Reith M.; Carr C.; Gunsch G. An examination of digital forensic models // International Journal of Digital Evidence. 2002.
59. Ryan D.J.; Shpantzer G. Legal Aspects of Digital Forensics // URL
60. Tinoco-Pastrana, Á. The Proposal on Electronic Evidence in the European Union // URL
61. Zupanec, D. Admissibility of Computerized Private Business Records // American law reports. 4th. cases and annotations. 1981. № 7. p. 16–19.
2. Baranov A.M. Electronic evidence: the illusion of criminal procedure in the 21st century // Criminal Justice. 2019.No. 13.P. 63-69.
3. Бирюков П.Н. Нормы международного уголовно-процессуального права в правовой системе Российской Федерации. – Воронеж: ВГУ, 2000. – 228 с.
4. Biriukov P.N. The norms of international criminal procedure law in the legal system of the Russian Federation. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2000. - 228 p.
5. Бирюков П.Н. Международное уголовно-процессуальное право и правовая система Российской Федерации (теоретические проблемы). Дисс. … доктора юридических наук. - Воронежский государственный университет. Воронеж, 2001. – 368 с.
6. Biriukov P.N. International criminal procedural law and the legal system of the Russian Federation (theoretical problems). Diss. … Doctors of legal sciences. – Voronezh State University. Voronezh, 2001. – 368 p.
7. Бирюков П.Н. О доказательствах в уголовном процессе США // Юридические стандарты государственной власти и правоохранительной деятельности: построение, организация, осуществление, эффективность. Материалы Международной научно-практической конференции, посвященной 100-летнему юбилею юридического факультета Воронежского государственного университета (Воронеж, 15–16 ноября 2018 г.) : в 2 ч. / под ред. Ю. Н. Старилова, О. С. Рогачевой. – Воронеж : Издательский дом ВГУ, 2019. Ч. 2. С. 69-76.
8. Biriukov P.N. On evidence in the US criminal process // Legal standards of state power and law enforcement: construction, organization, implementation, efficiency. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Law Faculty of Voronezh State University (Voronezh, November 15-16, 2018) : in 2 р. / ed. Yu. N. Starilova, O.S. Rogacheva. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University Publishing House, 2019. Part 2. P. 69-76.
9. Гаврилин Ю. В. Электронные носители информации в уголовном судопроизводстве // Труды Академии управления МВД России. 2017. № 4 (44). С. 47-59.
10. Gavrilin Yu.V. Electronic data carriers in criminal proceedings // Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2017. № 4 (44). S. 47-59.
11. Костенко Р.И., Петрова О.А. Проблемы изъятия электронных носителей информации в отечественном уголовном процессе // Юридический вестник Кубанского государственного университета.. 2021. № 1. С. 62-72.
12. Kostenko R.I., Petrova O.A. Problems of confiscation of electronic media in the domestic criminal process // Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2021. № 1. P. 62-72.
13. Курс уголовного процесса / под ред. проф. Л. В. Головко. – 3е изд. – М. : Статут, 2021. - 1328 с.
14. Course of criminal procedure / ed. prof. L. V. Golovko. – 3rd ed. – M.: Statut, 2021. – 1328 p.
15. Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters // URL
16. Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings // COM/2018/226 final - 2018/0107 (COD).
17. Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters // URL
18. SIRIUS EU. Digital evidence situation report - 2nd Annual report // URL
19. Das Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz – NetzDG // URL
20. Das Gesetz zur Bekämpfung des Rechtsextremismus und der Hasskriminalität // URL
21. Court of Appeals of Antwerp, judgment of 15 November 2017 // URL
22. Federal Civil Procedure Rules // URL
23. Federal Rules of Evidence 2020 // URL
24. US v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir. 1977) // URL
25. US v. Vela, 673 F.2d 86, 90 // URL
26. US v. Bonallo, 858 F.2d 1427, 1430-32 (9th Cir. 1998) // URL
27. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 S. Ct. 321 (1987) // URL
28. Aguimatang v. California State Lottery (1991) // URL
29. Orange County, Florida On October 14, 2008, Casey Anthony // URL
30. State v. Schroeder, 613 NW 2d 911 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2000 // URL
31. Adams, R. Val Hobbs, Graham Mann, The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM): A process model for digital forensic practice. Murdoch University, 2013 // URL
32. Atkinson, J. S. Proof is not binary: The pace and complexity of computer systems and the challenges digital evidence poses to the legal system // Birkbeck Law Review 2014. № 2 (2), р. 245-261.
33. Bagley, W. A. Don’t be evil: The fourth amendment in the age of google, national security, and digital papers and effects // Albany Law Journal of Science Technology. 2011. № 21 (1), р. 153-192.
34. Boone, Ch.; Rankin, B. Ross Harris defense reveals frustrations with judge in hearing for new trial // The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2020. December 14.
35. Carrier, Brian D. Basic Digital Forensic Investigation Concepts. 2006. 7 June.
36. Casey, E. Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, Second Edition. Elsevier, Academic Press, 2004. – 688 р.
37. Digital Evidence and the U.S. Criminal Justice System Identifying Technology and Other Needs to More Effectively Acquire and Utilize Digital Evidence / by Sean E. Goodison, Robert C. Davis, Brian A. Jackson // URL
38. Evidence: The Best-evidence Rule. Law Library. American Law and Legal Information // URL
39. Frieden, J. D., & Murray, L. M. The admissibility of electronic evidence under the federal rules of evidence // Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. 2011. XVII (2). р. 1-40.
40. Friess, N. When rummaging goes digital: Fourth amendment particularity and stored e-mail surveillance // Nebraska Law Journal. 2013. № 90(4), р. 972-1016;
41. Frost, A. Inferiority complex: Should state courts follow lower federal court precedent on the meaning of federal law? // Vanderbilt Law Review. 2015. № 68, р. 53-103.
42. Galves, F., & Galves, C. Ensuring the admissibility of electronic forensic evidence and enhancing its probative value at trial // Criminal Justice Magazine. 2004. № 19 (1). Р. 37-49.
43. Garfinkel, S. L. Digital forensics research: The next 10 years // Digital Investigation, 2010. № 7 (Supplemental). Р. 64-73
44. Garfinkel, S. L. Digital forensics // American Scientist. 2013. № 101(5), р. 370; URL
45. Garrie, D. B., & Morrissy, J. D. Digital forensic evidence in the courtroom: Understanding content and quality // Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 2014. № 12(2), 121-128.
46. Gershowitz, A. M. The post-riley search warrant: Search protocols and particularity in cell phone searches // Vanderbilt Law Review. 2016. № 69 (3), р. 585-638.
47. Goldfoot, J. The physical computer and the fourth amendment // Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law. 2011. № 16(1). Р. 112-168.
48. Grimm, P. D. Authenticating digital evidence // GP Solo. 2014. № 31(5). Р. 47-49.
49. Carrier, B. Defining digital forensic examination and analysis tools // International Journal of Digital Evidence. 2003. № 1, р. 1-12.
50. e-Evidence for EU legal practitioners 2021-2022 // URL
51. Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. Digital evidence and the U.S. criminal justice system. Research Report № RR-890-NIJ. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015.
52. Handbook of Digital Forensics and Investigation / Various, Eoghan Casey (ed.). Academic Press, 2009. - 567 p.
53. Hart, A. In court, digital evidence can shine or fizzle // The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2014. July 26.
54. Hooper; Ormerod; Murphy; et al. (eds.). Blackstone's Criminal Practice. Oxford, 2008. - 2285 p.
55. Interactive Tool for Ranking Digital Evidence Needs / by Brian A. Jackson, Dulani Woods // URL.
56. Novak, M. Digital Evidence in Criminal Cases Before the U.S. Courts of Appeal: Trends and Issues for Consideration // Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law. 2020. Vol. 14. № 4. Article 3. Р. 1-43.
57. Rankin, B. Ross Harris' hot car murder appeal still a work in progress // The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2019. September 3.
58. Reith M.; Carr C.; Gunsch G. An examination of digital forensic models // International Journal of Digital Evidence. 2002.
59. Ryan D.J.; Shpantzer G. Legal Aspects of Digital Forensics // URL
60. Tinoco-Pastrana, Á. The Proposal on Electronic Evidence in the European Union // URL
61. Zupanec, D. Admissibility of Computerized Private Business Records // American law reports. 4th. cases and annotations. 1981. № 7. p. 16–19.
Опубликован
2022-03-11
Выпуск
Раздел
Международное и европейское право
