Suppose you use the same discovery method to authenticate digital video evidence stored in the cloud as you would with video stored on a device. In that case, you may incorrectly target the machine that produced the video, spend the client’s money on unnecessary device acquisition methodology, and waste the court’s time on evidentiary issues rather than legal ones. Many video camera providers, such as Ring, don’t store files on the device but stream and encode them to the cloud, providing additional data on the device through user access. This is where experts can assist with authenticate ring video evidence in court.

Authenticate Ring Video in Court

A client may bring several versions of recorded evidence in varying formats from a Ring security camera to proffer evidence in a court proceeding. These recordings may have been trimmed or converted in order to maximize compatibility and relevance to the case. In this instance, you can expect the opposing counsel and their expert witness to object to the recordings, claiming they lack the necessary foundation to authenticate and admit them into evidence, most commonly reliant on metadata analysis alone.

Ring customers use a device to record videos and a Ring Protect plan to store them in the cloud. Under the plan, the camera detects movement and streams the video to Ring’s cloud storage, where the customer can access or share it for up to 180 days. The Ring device can also record video segments viewed in real-time (e.g., livestream) once a viewer gains access to the stream from the camera. In addition to the video, Ring logs data on what the camera did when it took the video and the interactions with the user account associated with the stored video.

Image by Freepik

Ring has law enforcement guidelines for search warrants and procedures to respond to government requests, court subpoenas, and preservation orders. Ring also supplies tools for customers to export their data from their services, allowing customers to access their accounts, download videos, and extract logs. Pay attention to the self-service tools. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) recommends using such tools, which will likely provide examiners with the highest quality video and additional data (SWGDE Best Practices for Digital & Multimedia Evidence Video Acquisition from Cloud Storage).

Whether your client brings the entire video to you or creates video clips from the downloaded videos stored in a non-native container (e.g., formatting), opposing counsel may object to introducing the video or the clips into evidence, arguing that your client tampered with the videos. This is common in a situation where the opposing expert is unaware of advanced methodology to authenticate the digital video file, such as a structural analysis in a non-native container, which requires examination of a known structural sample for device identification.  The opposition may even seek a spoliation sanction with additional discovery requests targeting your client’s smartphone, which can further complicate the video authentication issues. Authenticate ring video in court makes this a simpler process.

Many judges will not want to delay proceedings with additional discovery. The parties should agree on the information necessary for video authentication. Yet, opposing counsel’s expert witness may want to interrogate your client’s smartphone to find the truth or to perform what is commonly referred to as a “fishing expedition”. In that case, you have an expert-on-expert impasse, which rests on the fate of an argument of what is the most accurate, widely acceptable scientific methodology.

Dueling Expert Witnesses

Image by pressfoto on Freepik

Digital video authentication is a complex process to establish the provenance of a questioned recording to assess whether it is consistent with or altered from an original recording. Your opposing counsel and their expert witness may believe they need your client’s smartphone. But Ring live-streams video to cloud storage, where customers access it on demand. Opposing counsel may ask your client, “How do we know what you’re telling us is true?” Instead, they should ask, “What’s relevant and admissible?”

If an opposing expert knows the scientific methodology to compare the video clips to the original, containerized video file, there would be no authentication issue. When an expert focuses on a specific smartphone, hoping it will lead to additional information about the circumstances under which the video was created, who created it, and more, it goes against the scientific community’s best practices and standards regarding video authentication—focusing on context authentication. Although this type of investigation has a place in the courtroom, the inquiry should square off on whether the non-trimmed video files are consistent or altered from the original recording. Turn your attention to how Ring creates video.

Source Identification Process

First, look at a recording to know its provenance: where it has been and what it represents. One question to keep in mind: Was the recording made by someone else watching the video?

Compare how Ring produced the video and how your client created the proffered evidence. One of the most effective ways to authenticate a digital video file in forensic video analysis is to perform a structural analysis of the native container with which the device was created by examining an exemplar recording (e.g., a known sample). Test the same make/model Ring device as your client used and create several exemplar recordings. Compare metadata attributes and the native Ring container’s digital structure using a tool like Medex (see image below). The analysis can reveal a match with the signature of a known, unaltered Ring recording, alleviating any concerns for the reliability of the submitted supplemental evidence recordings.

Furthermore, examine the video stream/frame hash from the Ring server via a desktop browser and compare it with a video downloaded using the Ring App on a smartphone. The analysis may demonstrate that the acquisition process doesn’t affect the visual or digital integrity of the video images. Finally, the video log file can authenticate the date/time within the video file metadata and correlate with the log file acquired from the client’s Ring user account.

Change the Frame of Inquiry With Cloud-Based Video

When a video is live-streamed to cloud storage, scientific methods exist to authenticate the evidence rather than time-consuming alternatives by acquiring a smartphone. Ignore them at the cost of your client and the court’s time.

Cloud-sourced video evidence has officially hit critical mass, which testifies as a silent witness in a court of law. Suppose you have a recording generated by a Ring camera or other cloud-sourced video camera and need to understand the circumstances under which the recordings were created. In that case, forensic video analysis methodology can be helpful. More specifically, video authentication methodology can simplify over-complicated situations in litigation and save your clients time and money.

If you would like to speak to an expert about how video authentication works, you can request a consultation HERE

Use Site Inspections and Testing to Challenge Video Expert Opinion

Attorneys frequently offer audio, video, and digital images as evidence in civil and criminal litigation, where the interpretation of the evidence becomes a matter of expert opinion. Is the expert qualified to interpret the video evidence and make determinations, and are their statements based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation? This is where a rebuttal video expert witness becomes very important in a case.

Attorneys frequently offer audio, video, and digital images as evidence in civil and criminal litigation, where the interpretation of the evidence becomes a matter of expert opinion. Is the expert qualified to interpret the video evidence and make determinations, and are their statements based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation?

In a previous post, I discussed whether an expert is qualified to interpret video recording evidence. This post discusses whether an expert’s opinion of video recording evidence lacks rigor and a scientific foundation.

When litigation relies on observing and interpreting a digital video recording or its absence, the attorneys on either side of a case can be incorrect—even misleading. Without understanding how the video recording equipment works, definitive opinions on a recording are premature and subjective. In most cases, a site inspection allows a video expert to investigate the video equipment that captured the recording and reach a more definitive, objective position on the evidence based on a scientific foundation.

An Expert Walks into the Courtroom

Suppose an expert walks into the courtroom and renders an opinion with 100 percent certainty that a video recording system did not capture images to support or oppose a litigation strategy. Yet, the expert did not test the recording system. The opposing party should retain an audio-visual expert to rebut the expert’s methodology or offer a more accurate method.

Attorneys use a rebuttal video expert to refute subjective opinions based on observation and conjecture, not quantitative analysis, which can mislead a judge or jury. A rebuttal video expert witness can examine the video system properties and configuration to support their methodology and offer an alternative explanation of an opposing party’s expert view of the facts.

A rebuttal video expert should generate sample recordings using the same or similar equipment and apply various scenarios with which the evidence would have been captured and acquired. The investigation should include comparing device-specific metadata, stream characteristics, and proprietary encoding structures. This objective approach ensures the examiner or expert reaches the most accurate, peer-reviewable opinions.

Some experts provide opinions without understanding the limits of their methods or their offered opinions. In short, they don’t know what they don’t know. They step outside of their lane of expertise and provide testimony without fully understanding the discipline’s methodology. That is where a rebuttal expert witness, properly trained in a particular domain like audio-video forensics, can assist counsel.

A rebuttal video expert steeped in video forensics knows the limits that apply to video analysis, video authentication, video enhancement, reverse projection, and videogrammetry. These limits should set expectations and parameters and keep experts in their swim lanes. Exceeding them can render their opinions misleading and inaccurate.

Rebuttal Video Experts in Action

When experts inspect on-site video recording systems, they can generate information to rebut expert witness testimony. The rebuttal video expert can identify and test known system variables to support their opinions and oppose other expert opinions. Using peer-reviewable methods and on-site testing, video experts can determine boundaries within which an expert can testify about a specific methodology, provide questions and answers to discredit an expert’s testimony, and identify short-sightedness in their views.

On-Premises

A large corporation retained Primeau Forensics to investigate the validity of an opinion offered by a federal investigator on the authenticity of video surveillance recordings captured at the corporation’s location. Our client was accused of malicious tampering with the recorded evidence where there were abrupt changes in the personnel captured in the video recordings.

We conducted an on-site investigation to determine how our client’s video management system (VMS) detected motion and whether it accurately captured it on video. Through exemplar testing, we walked within the zones where movement should trigger video capture.

The VMS was more sophisticated than the average CCTV surveillance system. The VMS included threshold parameters for motion detection requiring sensitivity calibration. However, we found the system was not calibrated properly to detect the motion in question and thus did not engage the video recorder. We reported the testing results, confirming that the motion sensitivity threshold was insufficient to detect all movement from personnel in the monitored zones.

Off-Premises

A city attorney retained Primeau Forensics to defend an officer-involved shooting (OIS). The plaintiff’s expert opined on the lack of audio evidence, claiming the officer intentionally deactivated his body-worn wireless lapel microphone. We investigated as a rebuttal witness to determine if the plaintiff expert’s opinion was scientifically valid. 

Through rigorous microphone testing, we identified and recorded several audio signals that indicated how the microphone behaved. The microphone emitted different sound profiles in a recording when we manually deactivated it and when the battery died. We recorded both exemplar signals using an in-car camera system like the vehicle used in the OIS case. We compared the test results with the microphone’s audio signals captured by the in-car camera system, indicating that the officer did not deactivate the microphone—the battery died.

The Last Words

Testing video camera systems on and off-site with objective, widely acceptable methodology prevails over subjective observations of video evidence and faulty methodology. Having a rebuttal video expert on your team can provide a scientific foundation for why an opposing expert is incorrect, especially when making conclusions about what the human eye saw versus what a camera recorded. Those are the last words you will need to dispute the account of an expert witness.

If you need a video expert’s methodology or opinions evaluated, contact us and speak directly to an expert for a no-cost consultation. A site inspection may be just what your case needs.

Evidence in civil and criminal trials includes audio, video, and digital images, where the interpretation of the evidence often becomes a matter of expert opinion. When opposing counsel discloses or otherwise presents expert testimony or reports on video evidence, inquire into the expert’s qualifications and get the help of a video forensic expert to determine if their statements are based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation. 

In this post, I discuss whether an expert is qualified to interpret video recording evidence. In another post, I examine whether an expert’s opinion of video recording evidence lacks rigor and a scientific foundation. 

Video experts often generate non-scientific opinions based on observation and subjective methodology. First, ask whether the expert’s education and training enable them to make certain determinations. Then look at the expert’s experience in applying what they know. 

Video Forensic Expert Education 

To scrutinize a video forensic expert’s education, look to industry standards for educating and training video and image analysts. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) provides training guidelines and recommendations to assist organizations in designing educational training programs for forensic video and image analysts. The SWGDE training guidelines ensure that analysts are competent in completing forensic tasks and analyses. If an expert’s education and training incorporate SWGDE topics, they have a basic knowledge of audio-visual forensics to assist a judge or jury in interpreting and understanding video evidence. 

At base, a video expert witness must aid the judge or jury understand video or image evidence and help them make factual determinations and conclusions. While experts can offer their opinion based on their experience or expertise, they cannot draw legal conclusions.  

A video expert must have a baseline education and possess a diploma, degree, or certificate from a secondary educational institution or technical school related to forensic video and image collection, preservation, recovery, examination, and analysis. Although education in a discipline related to forensic video and image analysis is necessary, it is not sufficient without adequate training. 

Training Days 

A video forensic expert’s training should include only validated technologies and methods. It should provide a general knowledge of the major elements of video and image evidence, including the capabilities and limits of methods, hardware, and software. The training should include the skills to use specific tools and procedures competently. 

An expert should have an understanding of video and image evidence procedures and the ability to apply that understanding in various scenarios to present clear and unbiased video and image evidence-based testimony in court. The expert should also be able to prepare accurate, clear, concise documentation of results or opinions with visual aids. 

In forensic video analysis, several best practices exist to enhance and recover video recordings from the systems that created them. If an expert uses an improper approach or methodology, it can destroy the integrity of the digital evidence, rendering it inadmissible. Advanced methods include video authentication, video file repair, reverse projection, and videogrammetry, where the expert must set limits and expectations from the beginning and maintain them throughout the process. 

Video experts specializing in one scientific discipline may attempt to offer opinions about a secondary domain without the necessary training and experience. They may also provide views without understanding the limitations of their methodology, stepping outside of their expertise. That is where a rebuttal audio-video expert, properly trained in a particular discipline like audio-video forensics, can assist. A rebuttal video expert on your team will help you keep an opposing expert’s opinion confined to their knowledge and experience. 

Case in Point 

Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Primeau Forensics to provide expert opinions on a video exhibit generated by an IT staff person employed by the counsel’s law firm. The exhibit sought to determine whether a vehicle was in motion before a collision captured by a surveillance camera from a neighboring business across the street. We advised counsel that we needed to complete a reverse projection or videogrammetry investigation, allowing us to extract measurements from digital recordings from overlays of 3D point clouds from a laser scanning device. Plaintiff’s counsel did not retain our services.  

Defendant’s counsel contacted us to act as a rebuttal expert witness to counter the IT person’s testimony. Through a site inspection, we determined that the video captured had a low frame rate and a limited spatial resolution (quality), making it impossible to conclude the speed and position of the parties involved in the collision. As a rebuttal expert, we analyzed the collision video exhibit and discovered that the IT person’s methodology in generating the presentation was inaccurate and, in our opinion, objectionable. After deposing the IT person, the defendant’s counsel discovered that the IT person’s training in video forensics mostly consisted of YouTube videos. 

Having a rebuttal expert witness on your team that can call out an opposing expert’s inadequate knowledge and training to assist a judge or jury can be crucial to your case. And if a rebuttal expert can offer credible opinions on video evidence based on a scientific foundation—outstanding. Don’t take our word for it. Watch that critical scene from My Cousin Vinny when the automotive defense expert provided factual proof that the prosecutor’s expert was incorrect. 

If you have a case where you need an expert’s methodology or opinions evaluated, contact us for a free consultation with a video forensic expert. 

Introduction

Video surveillance systems are a critical element for business and residential customers. They secure specific areas and help deter crime simply by their presence. Surveillance systems commonly record crimes such as fighting, shooting, fire, theft, and vandalism. Forensic video recovery services in commercial litigation casework can assist with the acquisition of video evidence in order to preserve the digital integrity of the evidence and provide playable versions to the court for discovery purposes, in many cases, in large sums of data.

Casinos, County Jails, or consumers’ homes rely upon active surveillance. VMS (video management system) or a mobile phone app allows for review of active surveillance. Businesses like convenience stores, vehicle repair shops, or law firms rely upon passive surveillance methodology. A recorded and saved video allows for evaluation or analysis as needed. An appropriately trained and experienced individual should be handling digital evidence. Digital evidence, by nature, is fragile. If not handled by following best practices, the video can lose its digital integrity, reduce the accuracy of the chain of custody, introduce artifacts, and reduce the overall quality. We have investigated cases where a client mishandled the evidence before our involvement. This caused them to pay out higher settlements.

So why hire a professional like a video forensic expert to assist with collecting surveillance video recordings in civil litigation? The purpose of this post is to inform attorneys, investigators, and litigators about the benefits of engaging a video forensic expert to recover video recordings after an incident.

Forensic Video Recovery Investigation

As a Forensic Video Analyst, I recently aided a client-attorney representing the defense in a commercial litigation case, specifically real estate development litigation. Our client was accused of blocking an easement area of the shared property or violating an easement agreement. This case involved collecting and reviewing hundreds of hours of surveillance video recordings.

Request

The client’s property has a 32-channel HIK-Vision NVR system which housed critical recorded video evidence relative to the case. The client-attorney requested that our team assist with culling through 8 weeks of high-quality 4k video evidence from a single camera. The still frame extraction and export process occurred whenever our team noticed an instance of easement obstruction. The compiling of these still video frames created an exhibit. They represent instances of importance that the Judge and Jury would need to review about the breach of the easement contract.

Preserving the integrity of the video recording as evidence prompts a consideration for the Best Practices for Data Acquisition from Digital Video Recorders from SWGDE. Best practices recommend removing the original evidence hard drive and imaging (cloning). This is crucial for investigations requiring the contents of an entire drive. Thus, the team at Primeau Forensics performed the extraction, imaging, and review of the 10 TB of video recording on the HIK-Vision hard drive. The defense agreed that the preservation of the integrity of the evidence was critical.

The HIK Vision NVR system had 32 channels of cameras installed at the location. This is also the collection location of the evidence video recordings. Although these systems record reliable, high-quality video evidence, they do not always capture original video and may require forensic video authentication testing.

Video Analysis Process

Our team began the investigation by proposing an investigation plan to the defense team. To meet the trial deadline, the investigation plan of reviewing video evidence is crucial. This particular case had a 10-day turnaround. Using industry-standard tools such as DVR Examiner and Amped Five, our team of 4 technicians reviewed the video recordings and extracted hundreds of still image exhibits for trial use.

DVR Examiner is the most effective tool for extraction from the proprietary NVR video system. Using a write blocker enabled our team to forensically clone and connect the 10 TB drive to DVR Examiner. Multiple working drives allowed for the storage of the total export. One working drive for our team, another for the Plaintiff, and the third for the defense (attorney-client). Our goal was to preserve all exhibits’ recording authenticity and digital integrity.

Our team created a copy of the extracted video evidence on our forensic server. Once complete, we began assessing the video analysis project. Amped Five was critical and gave our team the ability to watch the video recordings efficiently and effectively. Features like stepping through 30-second periods, bookmarking the video frames of interest, and bulk exporting these frames while retaining the frame number for reference to the video evidence were most important to the case. Amped Five also retained the integrity of the video recordings in preparation for any authenticity challenges from Plaintiff.

Pre-Trial Assistance

Even the most experienced and talented attorney is only as successful when preparing for a trial as their litigation team. While at trial, I was able to provide further information on newly discovered evidence that Plaintiff brought in while putting on their case. We also assisted with providing digital and printed binders full of all image exhibits regarding the dispute.

I prepared a mobile NVR system, which stored the eight weeks of video evidence, which is sometimes necessary to review video recordings in a multicamera view within their native container, for months of data at a time. This was necessary also to ensure that the judge and jury understood the timecode issue. This evidence played the video with an accurate timecode through the NVR system. The video evidence was initially recorded with a timecode jumping issue. This assistance before testimony was critical in preparing to answer questions on the stand as a fact witness.

Trial Assistance

I traveled out of state for an appearance at trial as a fact witness. Some might ask, “why is a video expert being admitted as a fact witness?”. The short of the long is that the judge assigned to the preliminary hearings needed to fully understand how this investigative process would require an expert to complete. He believed the video playback and identification did not require an expert. However, in the forensic community, a qualified technician or analyst would be responsible for acquiring, handling, and extracting video evidence for courtroom use. Despite not being admitted as an expert, the forensic video analysis commercial litigation strategy was admitted nonetheless.

The direct examination began with explaining to the court precisely what our team did to generate the image and video exhibits. These exhibits were extracted based on a conservative review of the evidence. This was recommended to ensure all instances, good, bad, and ugly to the case, were communicated correctly to the court—this conservative approach to forensic video analysis as an expert witness.

“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million.” Plaintiff began cross-examination by showing me images that witnesses captured in person using mobile devices. However, surveillance videos that the defense furnished to the court displayed more information from a more accurate camera perspective because the video, in this case, was of higher probative value.

This cross-examination was complex for a fact witness, primarily experienced in testifying as an expert. He had to think on his feet and answer questions about the video recordings created over eight weeks. The witnesses’ ability to maintain a calm demeanor and answer complicated questions without the support of forensic methodology can be frustrating. I kept calm and responded to questions to ensure the jury understood the responses.

Conclusion

Although I couldn’t testify as an expert witness, I testified as a fact witness. Plaintiff challenged the integrity of the eight weeks of video as inadmissible. They argued that the discovery deadline date had passed. As a result, the jury should not review the submitted evidence. However, had the Primeau Forensics team not been involved in reviewing eight weeks’ worth of video evidence, the Plaintiff’s arguments may have been weighed more heavily by the jury.

The civil defense won the case. The trial judge ruled that the videos were relevant and that the images provided factual information. The judge found that my testimony would also be necessary to understand accurately how this investigation was completed.

Primeau Forensics’ 2020 Year in Review

In this special episode of Blindspot, we sit down with Ed Primeau and Michael Primeau. The father and son team have been working side-by-side since 2009 and are the owners and forensic experts behind Primeau Forensics. With 2020 in the rearview mirror, Ed and Michael give us a look inside the trials and triumphs that the COVID-19 pandemic brought to their small business and look ahead to what 2021 has in store.

A Look Back at 2020

The COVID-19 global pandemic ravaged our country’s small businesses in 2020. Hundreds of thousands were forced to reimagine how they do business, or, sadly, shut their doors. And although surviving organizations are starting to recover from their COVID-19 hit, a new era of change has commenced. From accelerated digitization to permanent shifts in management styles, Ed and Michael discuss their takeaways from the year.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Legal Industry

Next, the justice system faced a myriad of challenges following the onslaught of COVID-19. An industry that is known for being slow to embrace technology, social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home orders forced rapid evolution from court systems and the legal profession. This evolution includes tele-working, live-streaming, and shifting operations to the cloud. Ed and Michael discuss the impact COVID-19 has had on the legal industry, as well as their roles as forensic experts and expert witnesses.

Looking Ahead to 2021

All eyes are looking ahead to the future. What will 2021 bring? From new service offerings to exciting media features, we take a moment to touch on what listeners can expect to see from Primeau Forensics in the coming year.

Subscribe to Blindspot Podcast

Listen now to this special episode of Blindspot. Subscribe to the Blindspot podcast to automatically receive the latest episodes downloaded to your computer or portable device. Select the subscription method in the column to the right that best fits your lifestyle.

Primeau Forensics’ team is dedicated to supporting our clients and providing forensic litigation and consulting services that will assist their investigations. Contact us today or call us at (800) 647-4281 to learn more about our forensic services.