United States: The Argument For Metadata As A Matter Of Procedural Due Process

Last Updated: December 12 2016
Article by Matthew S. Adams

Originally published by Legaltech News

Due process is a fundamental component of the American system of law and justice. It has substantive and procedural components, and, at its core, is the thread of fundamental fairness that allows our judicial system to stand as an example for the world.

The intellectual foundation of due process can be tracked back to our nation's founding and the founders' quest to eliminate the risk of tyrannical governmental intrusions upon liberty. For example, in "Federalist Papers No. 84," Alexander Hamilton, invoking the words of the 18th century British legal scholar Sir William Blackstone, wrote of due process:

"To bereave a man of life ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."

While the substantive component of due process has been used throughout American history to define the limits of government regulation in ways that have caused constitutional scholars to debate whether such application has been applied in a purely subjective manner, or arbitrarily without textual support in the U.S. Constitution through the penumbral emanations of fundamental rights, procedural due process has proven to be a far more straightforward and less controversial legal concept than its substantive counterpart.

Procedural due process, it has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court (Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.), minimally ensures, "notice and [an] opportunity for [a] hearing appropriate to the nature of the case" before the compulsory "deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Procedural due process rights attach to varying degrees and at varying intensities at each of the various stages of criminal and quasi criminal proceedings.

More than 30 years before the widespread proliferation of technologies like the iPhone came to dominate our lives, in Morrissey v. Brewer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the procedural due process protections secured by the U.S. Constitution entitle defendants, among other things, access to the evidence to be used against them, even in a proceeding ancillary to a criminal prosecution like the one pertaining to the revocation of parole that was at issue there.

Intuitively, the rule of law set forth in Morrissey does not seem like a groundbreaking concept—the defendant gets to know what evidence the government is going to use against him or her before some aspect of their liberty is impacted. Practically, that is what affords a defendant the ability to mount a defense. Yet, in the modern technological age, there can be more to that evidence than initially meets the eye.

For some perspective, in 1972, the year when Morrissey was decided, Atari released Pong, a primitive precursor to modern-day video games that resembled the old MS-DOS prompt screen. Hardly entertaining by today's standards, at that time, it was unfathomable that Americans would come to feel more comfortable communicating by text message and email than in person or by phone, let alone the fact that each of us would carry a GPS-enabled supercomputer capable of fitting in the palm of our hand with us each day, wherever in the world we might happen to be.

Despite the relative simplicity of Morrissey and its progeny, the seemingly simple constitutional requirement that defendants be provided the evidence to be used against them can wreak havoc in settings involving electronic evidence. This is largely a product of the fact that electronic evidence has a hidden, powerful component that is baked into the evidence, but is widely misunderstood: metadata.

A hypothetical fact pattern demonstrates the predicament. Imagine the allegations of a basic, run of the mill fraud scheme. Risking oversimplification, in such a scenario, an actor makes false representations in order to secure something to which they are not entitled by inducing reliance upon those representations by another. The government needs to prove: (1) that the misrepresentations were made; (2) that the misrepresentations were intended to and did, in fact, evoke reliance; and (3) at least most of the time, that the victim of the scheme parted with a thing of value.

While this is a very academic set of facts, envision that the government's proofs rest upon a series of text messages sent by the defendant to the alleged victim. As part of the government's case, it suggests that the misrepresentations underlying the fraud were made on Jan. 1, 2016, because the date indicated on body of the text message communications central to the government's case says so.

In our hypothetical scenario, the government also claims that, as a result of receiving the Jan. 1, 2016, text messages, the alleged victim of the fraud scheme transferred money to the defendant on Jan. 10, 2016. This is the standard cause and effect relationship associated with basic fraud. The timeline is key—one event leads to another.

In this hypothetical set of facts, imagine that the government produces an unsophisticated printout of the text messages in question to the defense as part of the pretrial discovery process. Later, at trial, the government is able to lay the necessary foundation for the printout through investigators, and the court admits them into evidence. All of this is done without access by the defense to the original evidence in its native form, thus precluding the defense from in any way challenging that which is reflected on the face of the text message printouts.

Without access to the original electronic versions of the text messages—a three-dimensional composite of relevant information, including metadata—there is no way to determine if what was reflected on the printouts produced to the defense in discovery by the government is actually accurate. Metadata, classifiable according to most computer scientists as either descriptive, structural, or administrative, unlocks the truth behind what appears on the surface of the evidence. Digital information is not one-dimensional in the same way as its paper counterparts. Thus, upon examination of the metadata associated with the hypothetical text message communications, it could be determined, among other things, whether the critical text messages at issue were actually sent on Feb. 1, 2016, for instance.

The impact of such a discovery cannot be overstated. Specifically, it would prove that the "effect side" of the government's fraud equation happened some 20 days earlier than the supposed "cause side" of the equation. The defense value of such an irreconcilable inconsistency is immense. Without the metadata associated with the text messages in question, the discovery printouts provided by the government in this hypothetical are virtually useless, and because electronically stored information is so easily modified and corrupted, this scenario is not outside the realm of routine possibility.

Metadata is what makes electronically stored evidence three dimensional. Metadata is also what makes electronically stored information so powerful. Yet, a survey of case law from around the United States demonstrates that the procedural due process implications of a governmental failure produce metadata in the course of discovery has seldom been addressed in a precedential way outside of mere dicta. In Robinson v. City of Arkansas City, District of Kansas held that procedural due process was violated where city actively modified and misrepresented the properties of documents material to the case. But in U.S. v. Heiser, a child pornography prosecution, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant had "the necessary discovery in his possession in order to prepare a defense[,]" notwithstanding the fact that the version of a seized computer reproduced to the defendant in discovery was stripped of metadata.

Despite the dearth of authority on the constitutional significance of metadata, it would appear rudimentary that a defendant in a criminal or quasi criminal proceeding must be furnished with the metadata associated with electronically stored evidence to be used against him or her because that metadata is such a fundamental component of the evidence that it must be considered part and parcel to the evidence to be used against the defendant, within the meaning of Morrissey . Without it, quite simply, the defendant is left to defend himself or herself shackled at the hands and feet. Had the type of digital evidence that exists today existed at the time of our nation's founding, that outcome just might constitute the tyranny that our founders dedicated their lives to resisting.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Matthew S. Adams
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions