Which statement is true about the chain of evidence?

The statement regarding labeling items of evidence with signatures is crucial in establishing a chain of evidence because it ensures that each piece of evidence can be traced back to its source and maintains its integrity throughout the lifecycle of an investigation. Proper labeling with signatures provides accountability, demonstrating who collected the evidence, when it was collected, and how it has been handled since collection. This helps prevent contamination or tampering that could render evidence inadmissible in legal proceedings.

Moreover, a well-documented chain of custody also supports the credibility of the evidence in a court of law. Each transition of evidence—whether it’s collected, analyzed, or presented—must be carefully recorded to maintain its authenticity and trustworthiness.

In contrast, other options do not align with the requirements of maintaining a chain of evidence. For instance, while biometric data can indeed be relevant in some investigations, it is not a requirement for establishing a chain of evidence. The statement that telephone or Internet data is not relevant misleadingly overlooks its importance, as such data can often be critical in many investigations. Lastly, the claim that sensitive data does not need documentation is incorrect, as documenting sensitive data is vital to safeguard against unauthorized access and ensure compliance with data security policies.