JUS 101: Impact of Technology Across Criminal Justice - Milestone 2

This report examines the role of technology in various branches of the criminal justice system. It discusses the use of digital forensics in police investigations, including analyzing shoeprints and blood evidence, and using AFIS for fingerprint identification. In the context of prison security, the report highlights the importance of visitor identification and search procedures. It also touches upon electronic monitoring in probation and the constitutional implications of GPS tracking, referencing the United States V Jones case. Finally, the report acknowledges the growing importance of digital forensics as a career path, emphasizing the need for advanced tools to combat increasingly complex criminal activities. The document includes references to support its analysis of technology within the criminal justice field. Desklib offers a platform for students to access similar solved assignments and study resources.

Running head: Milestone Two Technologies 1
Milestone two technologies
[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]
[Institutional Affiliation(s)]
Author Note
[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

Running head: Milestone Two Technologies 2
Technology: Police Officer
From the scenario above for the shoeprints, the above exhibit should be photographed
then placed like a fingerprint which is then logged. This is a very important piece of evidence in
this advance digital world crime fighting. The above information can be used to and analyzed to
give the type, make approximate size, description, number of suspects for the case and the path
used by the criminal during the incidence (Yang & Wen, 2017). Again in the above scenario, the
drops of blood can be used to give clues whether or not the incident was burglary or maybe a
victim not entirely in the scene. This blood is an important piece of evident hence must be
collected and documented properly. The blood sample can be photographed and once at the
station, the investigators can sue a DNA sequencer. And lastly, between the hammer and the
handprint, the investigation officer can use the AFIS to identify the suspect using any traces of
fingerprints that might have remained in the hammer (White & McQuilkin, 2011)
Technology: Prison Guard
First, the officer at the entrance should ask for proper identification for all the visitors.
The visitor must fill out the registration form and provides document identification documents to
validate identification they are who they claim to be. Every person entering the correction center
must go through a search either by walking through some metal detector or using a wand (Rocha,
Scheirer, Boult, & Goldenstein, 2011)

Running head: Milestone Two Technologies 3
Technology: Probation Office
The officer has the option of using the electronic monitoring devices that are connected to
the central monitoring room and closely monitor the person who is using it. The device is able to
provide real-time monitor depending on the movement of persons under house arrest or any other
release terms used
Technology: Court Case
Here, the case study was the case of United States V Jones. In this case, the main
discussion was whether the United States government can be given the constitutional mandate to
install or use GPS technology to track the movement of a person without any court warrant as
stipulated in the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the FBI went ahead and installed a GPS
tracking device on Jones car at a parking lot. With the GPS device installed, the FBI used it for a
month to track the movements of Jones. Later, the FBI took Jones into custody for the crime of
conspiracy to sell cocaine (Recupero & Felthous, 2018). The supreme court had to use the long
history of protecting the fourth amendments to act as references for this case. In this case, the US
supreme court found a significant violation of the fourth amendment rights. The case was similar
to other cases where the US supreme court did use the same precedent to make ajudgment.;
United States V Maynard, the case of Katz V United States (Messmer, 2013)
Technology: Career Path
The career path of digital forensics uses some quite advanced tools which are of great
interest as the general complexity of these tools make the current criminal activities be tracked
and compelling evidence produced that leaves no question (Garfinkel, 2013)

Running head: Milestone Two Technologies 4
References
Garfinkel, S. L. (2013). Digital forensics: modern crime often leaves an electronic trail. Finding
and preserving that evidence requires careful methods as well as technical skill.
American Scientist, (5), 370.
Messmer, E. (2013). Cloud forensics: In a lawsuit, can your cloud provider get key evidence you
need? What to expect in the emerging world of cloud forensics. Network World.
Recupero, P. R., & Felthous, A. R. (2018). Introduction to this Special Issue: The Internet,
cybertechnology and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(2), 131–135.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2341
Rocha, A., Scheirer, W., Boult, T., & Goldenstein, S. (2011). Vision of the Unseen: Current
Trends and Challenges in Digital Image and Video Forensics. ACM Computing Surveys,
43(4), 26.1-26.42. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978802.1978805
White, D., & McQuilkin, J. (2011). Examination of the State of Digital Forensics Education
Programs in the United States. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences
Institute (NEDSI), 586–596.
Yang, S. C., & Wen, B. (2017). Toward a cybersecurity curriculum model for undergraduate
business schools: A survey of AACSB-accredited institutions in the United States.
Journal of Education for Business, 92(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1261790