No Need To Verify IP Address To Admit Email Reply at Trial

There is no need to authenticate emails using the internet protocol address, an Illinois appellate court has ruled.

To the court, emails are no different than reply letters. The ruling came in a criminal case where a 22 year-old was found guilty of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a 16 year-old. The court found that the male admitted having sexual relations with the girl in front of a fireplace in a room where her father was sleeping in a response to an email she sent from the sheriff’s department.

Nicholas J. Downin objected to the admission of the email response on the basis that it had not been properly authenticated, in part because the IP address was missing. His objection was supported by an expert who testified that the only way to verify the origin of the email was through an investigation of the IP address that did not appear on the exhibit which was a printed copy of the email. The victim was told to send an email to Downin by the investigating sheriff’s deputy. The email was sent from the sheriff’s office. There was testimony that the victim could access Downin’s email account since she possessed his email account password. In fact, she had told a friend that if she was having problems with a man she could create trouble for him by falsifying emails, the appellate court wrote. The victim also told others that she had taken a used condom from Downin’s home as was done in the movie “Crush.”

The court found that the authenticity of Downin’s reply email could be determined using the same standard used to authenticate reply letters, dismissing the expert witness’s testimony that a printed copy of an email does not necessarily reflect the origination of the email because printed copies of emails can be crated from sources other than the email program.

“When Deputy Caslin suggested Jennifer send an e-mail to Downin from the public safety building, she used the e-mail address for him that she had used on all prior occasions. Jennifer testified she received a reply from Downin’s e-mail address at her e-mail address, the same address Downin had previously used to communicate with her. The reply e-mail was responsive to the e-mail Jennifer sent and she testified it contained information known exclusively to her and Downin. For these reasons the trail court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the e-mail copies into evidence,” the appellate court found.

People v. Downin, Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, No. 3-03-0671, April 2005.