Evidence sharing with an end date
Access is case-specific, user-specific, logged, and automatically removed when the authorized window closes.
Infrastructure that can survive technical and legal scrutiny
Deliberately hybrid technology for laboratories where evidence integrity, accreditation, chain of custody, and cross-jurisdictional collaboration all have to coexist.
Key pain points
What this usually looks like before we arrive
These patterns are specific to forensic laboratories and shape which layer should change first.
Evidence sharing creates uncontrolled copies
Large files move through email, consumer transfer tools, or permanent links with no reliable expiry or access record.
LIMS and collaboration networks blur together
The evidence system, instrument data, user endpoints, and cloud collaboration share trust paths that should be segmented.
Version history is not chain-of-custody history
Ordinary file versioning does not automatically prove who accessed, changed, exported, or restored evidence-related content.
Accreditation controls live outside the technology
The quality manual describes a control, but the technical configuration and audit record are not tied back to it.
Instrument and evidence data outgrow local storage
Capacity expands reactively, backup windows grow, and recovery assumptions remain untested.
External access lasts longer than the case
Prosecutors, agencies, experts, and partners retain access because case-specific expiry was never designed into the workflow.
What you get
What a well-designed forensic laboratories environment makes possible
A defensible hybrid boundary
LIMS, evidence stores, instrument data, collaboration, and external sharing are placed according to integrity and availability requirements.
Controls mapped to the quality system
Technical settings, validation, audit trails, and recovery tests connect directly to accreditation procedures.
Recovery that preserves integrity
Immutable backup and tested restore procedures protect both availability and the history required to explain what happened.
Solutions
What we do for forensic laboratories
Every engagement begins with the environment, the operating constraints, the people, and the decisions that need to remain defensible. Then the scope is tailored from there.
Microsoft 365 Migration
A phased Microsoft 365 move with dependency testing, permission cleanup, rollback gates, and a documented operating model. Chain of custody, accreditation, and hybrid workload boundaries remain explicit.
Learn moreSecurity & Access
Identity, devices, access, logging, monitoring, and recovery configured against the risks and obligations that matter here. Chain of custody, accreditation, and hybrid workload boundaries remain explicit.
Learn moreSecure Evidence Sharing
Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, or evidence sharing structured around ownership, findability, external access, and retention. Chain of custody, accreditation, and hybrid workload boundaries remain explicit.
Learn moreManaged IT Services
A named team for administration, support, security, backup, vendors, and continuous improvement without losing institutional context. Chain of custody, accreditation, and hybrid workload boundaries remain explicit.
Learn moreVirtual CIO & IT Strategy
A two-year roadmap connecting business plans, risk, lifecycle, vendor leverage, project sequence, and budget. Chain of custody, accreditation, and hybrid workload boundaries remain explicit.
Learn moreNot sure where to start?
A 30-minute call with a senior advisor. We will tell you which work is urgent, which can wait, and which you may not need.
Book the callDesigned for your environment
The same solution, adapted to what constrains you
The same seven-layer model is calibrated to the privacy, continuity, compliance, evidence, capacity, and support constraints in this environment.
Chain of custody
Access, modification, export, transfer, and restoration events are logged in a way that supports the laboratory record rather than creating an unexplained parallel history.
Accreditation and validation
Controls are documented against ISO/IEC 17025, ANAB requirements, CJIS obligations, and the laboratory quality management system.
Hybrid workload placement
Evidence stores, LIMS, instruments, cloud collaboration, and external sharing are separated according to risk and operational need.
Cross-jurisdictional access
Partners receive the minimum access required for a defined case and period, with expiry, review, and a record of what was shared.
Regulatory & accreditation
Every control traces to a requirement
When an examiner, assessor, or reviewer asks why a policy is configured a certain way, the answer and the evidence are already connected.
Framework
How CTP supports compliance
ISO/IEC 17025
Access, version history, audit trails, validation, retention, and recovery connected to the laboratory quality management system.
CJIS Security Policy
Authentication, encryption, personnel access, device controls, logging, review, and incident procedures adapted to the applicable agency environment.
ANAB accreditation
Technical evidence organized so the laboratory can demonstrate that documented procedures and operating controls agree.
Daubert / Frye
Reliable records, change history, access governance, and documented procedures that support the foundational showing counsel may scrutinize.
Laboratory procedures
Controls mapped to local SOPs, case workflows, evidence handling, retention, external sharing, and validation requirements.
Evidence retention and disclosure
Retention schedules, legal holds, discovery, external review, and release procedures are connected to the technical controls that enforce them.
Framework coverage varies by engagement scope. This mapping supports the client’s compliance program and is not itself a certification.
We rely on CTP for their technical knowledge, insight, flexibility and reliable delivery. Not only for day-to-day operational support, but as a key contributor to the IT strategic planning process.
Philip Miller
VP of Information Technology, East Cambridge Savings Bank
Questions
Frequently asked
Still need something? Talk to a senior advisor - no sales deck, just a conversation.
Do you move LIMS and evidence storage to the cloud?
Not by default. Each workload is placed according to integrity, performance, validation, connectivity, and recovery requirements. A deliberately hybrid answer is often the right one.
How is external evidence sharing controlled?
Access is tied to a named person, case, role, and expiry. Downloads, changes, and sharing events are logged, and access is reviewed when the case or engagement closes.
Can the controls map to our quality manual?
Yes. We document which technical control supports each procedure, how it is tested, and what evidence demonstrates that it is operating.
How do you handle CJIS requirements?
We design authentication, encryption, logging, personnel access, device controls, and review procedures around the applicable CJIS environment and agency obligations.
Will the architecture hold up in court?
Technology alone cannot decide admissibility, but it can preserve reliable records, change history, access controls, and documented procedures that support the foundational showing counsel may challenge.
Design the next step for forensic laboratories
No sales deck. No product pitch.
A substantive conversation with a senior CTP advisor about where your architecture is, where it should be, and how to get there without unnecessary disruption.
A senior advisor reads every request and starts with your situation.