Solving Crimes: Admissible Access Control Logs?

Access control records are commonly admitted into court cases to prove/ disprove where people are when crimes are committed.

For example, the high-profile Annie Le murder case, Access Control records played a key role in convicting the murderer:

"Electronic Trail

Cops also made use of a secure system where they could track the suspect and victim’s movements throughout the building.

Electronic key-card records reveal Clark traveling in unusual patterns throughout the building during the 10 days leading up to Le’s disappearance. Rooms inside the secure part of the lab are only accessible by key card.

Clark was the only one to access Room G22 during the time of the suspected crime, the warrant states.

The key card records, and the DNA evidence on the lab coat, bloody sock and the green pen were enough to establish probable cause that Clark was the killer, Brafuhr wrote."

...and this case is just one of many where prosecution hinged on access system logs.

With a disproportionate amount of scrutiny applied to video surveillance admissibility (ie: watermarking, chain-of-custody, CODEC) there is almost no mention of similar criteria for access control records.

It seems to me that tampering with access records would be dramatically less complex than frames of video, identity can be spoofed (or cards can be misused by others), and the vulnerability of time/date falling out of sync is real.

Do you know of any court admissibility standards for access control records?

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

** *** ** ** *****, *** ****** ******* ****** * person ***** *** **** **** *****. ******* **** ******* ****** it **** *** ** *****.

**** ** **** ******* ** **** ***** ** ** *******. Most *****, ******** ** ***** ***'* **** *** ** * jury. **** *** ******* *** *** ** ******* ****** **** happens. **** ** *** ****** ******** ************* **** **** * hard **** ******* *** ***** ** *** ********** ** *** client. ***** ** ****** ****** **** ***.

****'* ***********.

** *** ***** ** ***** ** ********* *** * ****-************ expert ** ****** '********** *****' **** ******** ******** **** ****** could ** **********?

****** *** ***** ********* ******* *** ********* ************ **** ********. ***** *** ** **** (*** **** ******) ** *********.**** *** ** ******** ********.

**** **** ********* ****** *** ***** ** *******, **** *** done ** ****-**** ** ******** *** *****. ***** ** ** common ****** ** '************' ******** ****** ****. ***** ********* .**** have **** **** ** ******** ****?

** * ******** *** ********* '*** ********' *** ** ****** handling ** *** ***, ******'* *** **** ****** ** ******* to *********** **********?

** ****** **** ***** ** **. *** ******** ** *** whether **** *** ** ***, *** ******** ** *** ***** they? **** ** ***** * ***** ***** **. **** ** why * **** ****** *** **** **** ******. ****** ******* the ********** ** * ************* ** *** ********. *** *** every ******** ************ ** ******** ** *** "********* *** ********** care" **** ******** ** ********** *** **** ** ********. ** you **** *** ****** ** ** ******* ***** ********, ******** those *** *****. ********* *** **********.

**** ** *** ** **** ******** **********. * **** ** an ******* **** **** ***** "*****" ** ******. **** *** they ***. * ** *** ***** ** ****** ******** ******* access ** *** ********, *** *** ** ***** ******. *** how **** ******** ******* *** *********, ********* *** ********* ******? That ** * **** ***** ********.