Accident Investigation Night Shots

Currently, it is not that specific as it related to crime scene photography. There are two standards.

1. did you take the picture or were you there while the picture was taken.
2. is this picture an accurate representation of the scene at the time the photo was taken.

I have been testifying in court for 6 years on crime scene photos and have yet to be asked any technical questions. I am, however, prepared to answer them when the time comes.

...and to address added light (altering the scene), the photographing of the scene could be taking the scene as it is naturally, then the scene with added lights. I am sure some dark, middle of nowhere roads will have no light, artificial light will be needed. This would also apply to crime scenes that may be nearly pitch black and the only true light is light from the officers flashlights. I have taken shots in both examples above and the added light has not been an issue. The scene, as discovered , should be shot prior to adding, changing the lighting. I would also suggest he contact his prosecutor/DA for guidance. The local courts, including appeals court, may have already given opinions to the matter.

Benji wrote in post #9055452
I photograph accident scenes for insurance companies on occasion and for a former state police officer turned independant accident scene investigator and I was told that I may have to appear in court and explain exactly how the image was created, lens used etc. It sounds to me like a sharp attorney could shred any evidence photos taken by a rank amateur by simply asking the focal length and magnification of the lens used to photograph the scene and how much experience he has photographing accident scenes. For example if he used anything other than a "normal" lens to photograph the scene it will add distortion and create a visual situation that actually did not exist at the time of the accident. Also adding any additional lights to the scene could cause problems for him on the witness stand.

Benji

There's a lot of science involved with accident investigation and it all has to be explained to the judge and jury during a trial. In most cases, it's pretty obvious who was at fault and why, and the pictures are not the final say. In 95% of the cases, the blood alcohol level is what puts them away. The pictures just reinforce the situation.
Since I started looking for help for him, he has talked to another officer who has decent photographic skills. He advised my son on going the manual/ existing light route and not relying on a flash to do much. In bad lighting situations, like on back roads without lighting, they can call out a fire department light truck to help give extra light. Again, it is not specifically the photos that will put somebody away. It is more background information such as road conditions, weather, etc. In many instances, the car's black box tells you a lot of what you need to know. Did you know cars have them too?
Thanks for all of the suggestions. Now, it's time for him to experiment in off hours and gain experience. The great thing about digital is that you can retake a shot right then and there while everything is still available for you.

There are several publications out there for this including Forensic Photography for dummies. Do a google search to learn specifics

Bucster wrote in post #9041979
Ironically I'm a commissioned Crime Scene Investigator for the Tulsa Police Department, and I instruct photography for the department. Where are you located? I'd be happy to help him out if you're close.

The quick and dirty way to shoot accidents is to get a tripod and use the non-flash auto settings, NOT THE GREEN BOX. Full auto wants to use flash, most accidents occur at night on poorly lit roads. He must have a tripod and patience.

Have him learn exposure and white balance. Don't trust the AWB at night as most lights are sodium vapor and all of his images will be yellow.

I would recommend RAW but it depends on his departments SOP / Policy.

Let me know if I can help. This is a great place for photo advice and I use it as a learning tool for my side photo business. However there is a huge difference in crime scene photography and non-crime scene photography. The principles of photography are the same, but the legal requirements and court admissibility are different.

FYI, for those who don't know. Many departments, even very large ones, offer very little training for photography. An unfortunate side effect is the overuse of the GREEN BOX. In my department we have 18 crime scene investigators and 17 of them use the green box, guess who doesn't.

It's fast and dirty and if you take enough poor quality pictures saturated with flash blowing out both ends of a histogram, you might get enough pictures for prosecution. This is not how I operate, but it is how many departments shoot crime scenes.

Out of curiosity, would anyone be allowed to post the evidence pictures on the web like was done here or could that be breach of confidentiality or something similar?

Was a CSI for almost 13 years in my 15 law enforcement career, please let me know if I can help out in any way.

I have shot many crash scenes and fire scenes at night for newjerseyfire.com

A few things that I can add to this are:

1) If you are shooting the scene at the time of the incident, ask the fire or rescue crews to setup the light towers or portable gen-lights to light your scene. More often then not when it involves police investigations, they love to help and will do almost anything you ask them to. Fulfills a sort of CSI kinda thing. (I know because I used to be a fire fighter)

2) If you are using the built-in flash its good for close ups. As far as taking in the whole scene I have learned that external speedlights and the reflective turnout gear from the firefighters, reflective striping on the trucks and police cars and the emergency lighting (LED, strobe, or rotators) can absolutley fool the heck out of e-ttl metering. Often times I choose spot metering and take a reading while NOT pointing at the reflective item, then recompose. It dosen't always work but it helps.

3) I would shoot RAW and jpg. Jpgs should be fine but if ever questioned in court regarding the authenticity, the RAW file is proof that its not edited.

Thanks for all of the input. Some of you are pros and do this for a living. You have to understand that the training my son had was the physical/ science of accident investigation. After that, they got a camera thrown at them and were told to document what they see, without training of any kind. Believe it or not, he says they got better results out of the SureShots they had as opposed to a camera with all the bells and whistles. The pictures posted were garbage and were just an example of how bad they can come out trying to let the camera do your thinking for you. There is nothing in them that is admissible as evidence. As mentioned, fire department light trucks are used quite often for extra light.