This research examined opinions of local law enforcement agencies’ patrol officers in the State of Georgia regarding preparedness and expectations for handling of digital evidence. The increased criminal use of technology requires that patrol officers be prepared to handle digital evidence in many different situations. The researcher’s goal was to gain insight into how patrol officers view their preparedness to handle digital evidence as well as their opinions on management expectations regarding patrol officers’ abilities to handle digital evidence. The research focused on identifying whether a gap existed between patrol officers’ opinions of digital evidence and the patrol officers’ views on what management expectations are for patrol officers handling digital evidence. Using a Web-based survey, the researcher collected data from 144 departments, 407 individual patrol officers in four strata across the State of Georgia. The analysis of the data found that most patrol officers handle digital evidence in at least some situations. The patrol officers’ opinions stated that most understood management expectations for handling of digital evidence and felt those expectations were realistic based on the officers’ current knowledge and training; therefore no significant gap was found. The patrol officers state that they need additional training in order to stay up to date with the current and future needs for handling existing and new technology.

The Macintosh Hierarchical File System Plus, HFS +, or as it is commonly referred to as the Mac Operating System, OS, Extended, was introduced in 1998 with Mac OS X 8.1. HFS+ is an update to HFS, Mac OS Standard format that offers more efficient use of disk space, implements international friendly file names, future support for named forks, and facilitates booting on non-Mac OS operating systems through different partition schemes. The HFS+ file system is efficient, yet, complex. It makes use of B-trees to implement key data structures for maintaining meta-data about folders, files, and data. The implementation of what happens within HFS+ at volume format, or when folders, files, and data are created, moved, or deleted is largely a mystery to those who are not programmers. The vast majority of information on this subject is relegated to documentation in books, papers, and online content that direct the reader to C code, libraries, and include files. If one can’t interpret the complex C or Perl code implementations the opportunity to understand the workflow within HFS+ is less than adequate to develop a basic understanding of the internals and how they work. The basic concepts learned from this research will facilitate a better understanding of the HFS+ file system and journal as changes resulting from the adding and deleting files or folders are applied in a controlled, easy to follow, process. The primary tool used to examine the file system changes is a proprietary command line interface, CLI, tool called fileXray. This tool is actually a custom implementation of the HFS+ file system that has the ability to examine file system, meta-data, and data level information that iv isn’t available in other tools. We will also use Apple’s command line interface tool, Terminal, the WinHex graphical user interface, GUI, editor, The Sleuth Kit command line tools and DiffFork 1.1.9 help to document and illustrate the file system changes. The processes used to document the pristine and changed versions of the file system, with each experiment, are very similar such that the output files are identical with the exception of the actual change. Keeping the processes the same enables baseline comparisons using a diff tool like DiffFork. Side by side and line by line comparisons of the allocation, extents overflow, catalog, and attributes files will help identify where the changes occurred. The target device in this experiment is a two-gigabyte Universal Serial Bus, USB, thumb drive formatted with Global Unit Identifier, GUID, and Partition Table. Where practical, HFS+ special files and data structures will be manually parsed; documented, and illustrated.

ABSTRACT Background: Previous criminal justice policies have been non-effective leading to overpopulated prisons and unsuccessful reintegration. There is a lack of effective supportive and/or rehabilitative services resulting in high rates of recidivism and mental health implications. Objective: This study investigated the perceived impact that incarceration and reintegration with little to no supportive and/or rehabilitative services has on the mental health status of an individual. The emphasis was on participant perception and not on professional reports because of underreporting and lack of attention to mental health in the criminal justice system. Methods: Focus groups in the Inland Empire and Coachella Valley were held to gather preliminary data used to develop the survey for this study. The survey was distributed to 88 male and female ex-offenders over the age of 18 who were no longer on probation or parole. Secondary data from United Way 211 and California State Reentry Initiative was collected to report current trends of supportive and/or rehabilitative services. Results: Incarceration was found to negatively impact perceived mental health status, but reintegration was not. Supportive and/or rehabilitative services continue to be rarely offered and accessed, but when accessed, perceived mental health status is better. Supportive and/or rehabilitative services are more readily available. People who are using these services are improving their quality of life, becoming productive members of society, and preventing recidivism. Conclusions: A paradigm shift is currently under way to reduce recidivism by improving supportive and/or rehabilitative services during incarceration and reintegration. Many offenders are receiving services as an alternative to incarceration, recidivism rates are being reduced, and ex-offenders are becoming productive members of society. The field of social work is an integral part of reentry services and should continue advocating for policies and services that support reintegration efforts at the micro and macro level.