Altep, Inc. can assist you with the daunting task of managing forensically-sensitive information by providing EnCase-certified forensic examiners to investigate, collect and prepare materials for litigation. 

Our forensics experts have a unique blend of experience and skill in the areas of information security, investigative techniques, forensic data analysis, jurisprudence and litigation support. This combination provides a well-rounded perspective on the requirements and limitations surrounding computer forensics and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .

In any situation where electronic data is likely to prove relevant to a criminal or civil investigation, that data must be collected by an experienced forensic examiner.  Opening, copying or even printing an electronic document without using a forensically sound technique can cause irreparable changes to evidence.

Corporations often use forensic collection methods to investigate human resource issues such as hostile workplace claims, allegations of sexual harassment, and even employment equality disputes.  Additionally, embezzlement, intellectual property theft and information leaks are areas where organizations can employ computer forensics to identify and prosecute transgressors. 

Forensic techniques are also widely used in civil litigation.  Individuals and corporations can use both personal and work-related information to either prove or disprove a variety of civil claims in areas ranging from paternity and divorce to discrimination, fraud and harassment.  This information can found on computers, networks, e-mail servers and storage media. 

Our primary investigative tool is the EnCase Forensic software suite. This platform is widely regarded as the gold standard in the computer forensics industry, and has withstood numerous court challenges.

Sanders v. State WL 561853 - In its decision published on March 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's determination that the EnCase software used by law enforcement investigators properly preserved, authenticated and retrieved digital evidence from the appellant's computer.

Williford v. State 127 S.W.3d 309 - In 2004, EnCase software was validated under a similar ruling and fact pattern. Importantly, the Sanders court took judicial notice - which is a court's acceptance of an established or incontrovertible fact - of prior court decisions that validated EnCase, noting that "once some courts have, through a Daubert/Kelly 'gatekeeping' hearing, determined the scientific reliability and validity of a specific methodology... other courts may take judicial notice of the reliability (or unreliability) of that particular methodology."

Many subsequent rulings, including Krause v. State in 2007, have reinforced Encase's standing as the tool of choice for forensic investigation.