By Austin Edwards
Rural law enforcement agencies are often told to do more with less. Anyone who has worked in a small agency knows that phrase is not motivational. It is usually just the daily operating model.
The patrol officer may also be the evidence technician. The detective may also be the grant writer, computer troubleshooter, public information officer and after-hours callout person. Specialized units are limited, staffing is thin, and the nearest forensic resource may be hours away.
The problem is that the people we investigate are not using “rural” technology. They are using smartphones, cloud accounts, social media, encrypted messaging, surveillance cameras, vehicles, gaming platforms and financial apps just like offenders anywhere else. That leaves rural agencies with a problem: Digital evidence is becoming more important to our cases at the same time that many small departments still lack the capacity to process it.
I am not writing this because our program is perfect. I am writing this because it exists. We did not have unlimited funding, a polished laboratory or a fully staffed forensic unit. We had cases that could not wait, victims who deserved answers and investigators who understood that digital evidence had become central to almost every serious investigation we handled.
For agencies facing the same challenge, one lesson stands out: Do not assume the first “no” means the idea is dead. Our digital forensics program started with need, not abundance.
The need will not wait for the budget cycle
Digital evidence is no longer limited to major cases or specialized investigations. We see it in domestic violence, child exploitation, homicide, suicide, narcotics, burglary, fraud, missing persons cases, officer safety threats and crimes against children.
In rural communities, that evidence can be especially important because investigators may already be working with fewer witnesses, fewer cameras and fewer investigative resources.
For years, the default answer for many small agencies was to send a device to a larger department, state laboratory or federal partner and wait. Those partnerships remain extremely valuable, but those resources are busy too. When a phone extraction or computer examination takes months, an investigation can stall. Prosecutors wait. Victims wait. In some cases, offenders keep operating.
That does not mean every rural department needs to build a full-service digital forensics laboratory. It means leaders should take a realistic look at what their agency could handle locally. That might include mobile device acquisitions, video review, cloud-return review, triage, search warrant assistance, evidence preservation or report preparation. Start with the problem creating the biggest bottleneck.
For many departments, that will be phones. They show up in almost everything we investigate. Even a modest mobile forensic capability, backed by proper training, policy and legal process, can make a noticeable difference.
Funding is hard — but keep looking
Money is usually the first obstacle.
Digital forensic tools are expensive, and the purchase price is only the beginning. There are licensing renewals, training costs, storage, workstation upgrades, write blockers, Faraday equipment, evidence management and backup systems.
It is easy for a small agency to see those numbers and decide it cannot afford to enter the field.
Our experience was different because we stopped looking only at the normal local budget.
Our program was built by looking beyond the normal local budget. State money helped. A grant from the nonprofit Our Rescue helped. Other agencies may find opportunities through state grant-administering offices, local public safety grants, Byrne JAG, Coverdell forensic funding, Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) partnerships, state legislative appropriations, nonprofit grants, community foundations, regional task force partnerships or prosecutor-supported initiatives.
How you describe the need matters. A request for “digital forensic software” can sound like a technology upgrade. That is not really what you are asking for. You are asking for the ability to move violent crime investigations forward, protect children, clear cases, support prosecutors and get evidence into investigators’ hands faster.
When we make that case, we should be able to put numbers behind it:
- How many devices are sitting in evidence?
- How long are you waiting for outside examinations?
- How many cases involve phones, social media, surveillance video or cloud evidence?
- How many nearby departments have the same problem?
- What happens to a case when evidence cannot be preserved or reviewed quickly?
Those questions give grant reviewers and decision-makers something more meaningful than a software price tag. They show the investigative problem the technology is supposed to solve.
Build the program before you build the lab
Buying a tool is not the same thing as building a forensic capability. A forensic platform without policy can create problems. So can an examiner who has training but no documentation standards, or an extraction conducted without a clearly defined legal basis.
Before — or at least alongside — purchasing equipment, agencies should establish procedures covering:
- Case acceptance and prioritization
- Legal authority, including warrants, consent and scope limitations
- Evidence intake, chain of custody and storage
- Device handling, isolation and preservation
- Examiner roles and limits of authority
- Tool validation and version documentation
- Report writing standards
- Peer or technical review when available
- Disclosure of limitations and failed attempts
- Data retention, deletion and prosecutor approval
- Security of forensic images, extractions and reports
- Training and continuing education
- Procedures for employee, officer-involved and other sensitive cases
That does not require a 200-page manual before the first device is examined. Start with a workable standard operating guideline. Improve it as the program develops.
Ultimately, an examiner should be prepared to answer three basic questions in court:
- What did you do?
- Why did you do it that way?
- How do you know the result is reliable?
If those answers are unclear, buying another tool will not fix the underlying problem.
Think regionally
Rural law enforcement already depends heavily on partnerships. Digital forensics is a natural extension of that model. One department may have the equipment. Another may have an investigator with the right training. A prosecutor’s office may help establish case priorities. A sheriff’s office may be able to provide regional support. State task forces and ICAC affiliates may offer training, technical assistance or peer review.
There is also a practical funding advantage to thinking beyond one department. A grant request to support one small agency may be worthwhile. A proposal that gives several rural agencies access to forensic capability and supports violent crime, child exploitation investigations and prosecutor readiness may tell a stronger story.
Regional programs still need boundaries. Agencies should establish how requests are submitted, how evidence is transferred, how reports are delivered, what cases receive priority, whether costs are shared and who maintains responsibility for the data.
A basic memorandum of understanding can answer many of those questions before a difficult case forces agencies to figure them out on the fly.
For a small department, building digital forensic capacity may ultimately do more than improve its own investigations. It may fill a gap for an entire region.
Training matters more than the software
There are excellent forensic platforms available, but software does not replace judgment. Agencies should invest in training early and continue investing in it. That means more than learning where to click inside a particular program.
Examiners need continuing education in legal updates, search warrant drafting, testimony preparation, report writing, evidence handling and mobile and computer forensic concepts. If an examiner is likely to testify, courtroom preparation should be part of the training plan from the beginning.
Supervisors need some education too. They do not need to know how to parse every artifact, but they should understand turnaround times, storage demands, legal limitations and why a request to “just dump the phone” may be far more complicated than it sounds.
Forensic work can be slow and documentation-heavy. When an examiner asks for a narrower warrant, additional storage, time to validate a result or a cleaner workflow, that is not necessarily bureaucracy getting in the way of an investigation. Often, it is what protects the investigation later.
Plan for the second year, not just the first
Getting a digital forensics program started is one challenge. Keeping it operating is another. Licenses have to be renewed. Workstations become obsolete. Storage disappears faster than expected. Training has to be refreshed. Case law changes. Devices become harder to access. Cloud returns get larger, and video can consume enormous amounts of storage.
Then there is the personnel issue. If one investigator becomes the agency’s forensic examiner, what happens when that person is promoted, transferred or leaves? Even a one-person program needs documentation, backups and a succession plan. Agencies should start developing a second examiner before they desperately need one.
Metrics help here as well. Track the number of devices received and processed. Track turnaround times, case types, outside agencies assisted, warrants supported and reports completed. Document cases in which digital evidence had a measurable investigative impact.
Those numbers help when it is time to justify a license renewal, another training course, additional storage or another examiner. More importantly, they allow agency leaders to see what the program is actually accomplishing.
Start with what you can do
Rural agencies hear plenty about what they lack. Not enough people. Not enough money. No laboratory. No dedicated space. No perfect setup. Some of those limitations are very real. They just do not have to be the end of the discussion.
Build the policy. Train somebody. Identify the investigative need causing the biggest delay. Look for one funding source. Talk with your prosecutor. Ask the state what assistance is available. Find out what neighboring agencies are dealing with. Then document what happens when you start solving the problem.
The cases are already here. The phones are already sitting in evidence. Victims are already waiting.
A rural agency does not need to become a federal laboratory to make a difference. It needs a lawful process, trained people, sound documentation and leadership willing to build the capability one step at a time.
That is how our program started.
References & Resources
- Bureau of Justice Assistance. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
- Bureau of Justice Assistance. Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
- Bureau of Justice Assistance. FY25 Rural Law Enforcement Violent Crime Reduction Initiative. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
- Community Oriented Policing Services Office. Technology and Equipment Program. U.S. Department of Justice.
- National Institute of Justice. Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders, Second Edition. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics, Special Publication 800-101 Revision 1.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response, Special Publication 800-86.
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
- Our Rescue. Law enforcement grant and digital forensics support resources.
- Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence. Best Practices for Digital Evidence Collection.
- Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence. Best Practices for Mobile Device Evidence Collection, Preservation, Handling, and Acquisition.
About the author
Austin Edwards is a detective with the Alamogordo (New Mexico) Police Department specializing in criminal investigations and digital forensics. Recognized as an expert in digital forensics in New Mexico’s Twelfth Judicial District, he leads digital forensic examinations and provides digital forensic support to agencies throughout southern New Mexico. Edwards earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and a Bachelor of Arts in Forensic Psychology from Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) and is currently pursuing a Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology at SNHU. His work focuses on helping rural law enforcement agencies build practical, sustainable digital forensics programs.
