Surveillance footage can settle a disputed fact faster than any witness. It can also be attacked: where it came from, whether it was edited, what happened when the camera wasn’t rolling. Whether it holds up usually depends on habits the investigator had long before trial.
Authentication
Before evidence can be used, someone has to show it is what it claims to be. For surveillance, that is usually the investigator who recorded it, testifying to when, where and how. Clear records make that testimony short and dull, which is the goal.
Continuous, contemporaneous notes
A surveillance log written in real time, with times, locations, vehicles and observations, ties the video together. It explains the gaps: the subject went inside, the view was blocked, the investigator repositioned. Notes written days later are easy to challenge. Notes written in the moment are not.
Preserving originals
The original files should be kept unaltered, with their metadata intact, and copied for review and editing. A documented chain of custody, covering who held the files and when, answers the question of tampering before anyone asks it.
Staying lawful
Footage gathered unlawfully can be excluded and can expose the investigator and the client to liability. Field work has to respect privacy and trespass limits, along with each state’s rules on recording. Lawful vantage points and lawful methods protect the evidence.
Context on the stand
On cross-examination, the questions are usually about what the video doesn’t show. An investigator who can explain every gap from the log, calmly and precisely, makes the footage far more credible.
Craig has more than 4,300 documented hours of mobile, fixed and covert surveillance since 2014.
General information only. This is not legal advice and does not describe any specific client matter.