When evidence has a disrupted chain of custody, it raises significant concerns about its integrity and authenticity. The chain of custody refers to the documentation and handling processes that ensure evidence remains untampered with from its collection to its presentation in court. If this chain is broken, it introduces the possibility that the evidence could have been altered, contaminated, or misrepresented at any point.
Because of these concerns, evidence that has a disrupted chain of custody is typically considered unreliable. Legal standards often dictate that for evidence to be admissible in court, it must be proven that it has been handled properly throughout the investigative process. Without the assurance provided by an intact chain of custody, objections can be raised regarding the validity of the evidence, making it likely that it would be excluded from consideration altogether. Such exclusions serve to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and uphold the standards of admissible evidence.
In contrast, other options such as using the evidence with proper documentation or re-evaluating it for integrity would imply that the evidence could still be deemed acceptable, which is not typically the case when the chain of custody is disrupted.