Sex offences such as forcible sex offense is an example of the evidentiary issue that could be presented that could require the admission of digital evidence during its trial. When dealing with sex offense, there must be clear evidence that is required so that the court can reach to a final conclusion and decision of the care (Shelton, 2011). For example, the case involving Andrews v. State, 533 So 2d 841, this was an example of the case which involved a forced vaginal intercourse with the victim (Shelton, 2011). Over the objection of the charges, the state presented the DNA print identification that was used as evidence linking the appellant to the crime.

The DNA was extracted from victims’ vaginal swab and compared with the victim’s DNA thus proving beyond reasonable doubt that he was the one. In regard to this, the evidentiary issue is the forcible sex offence and one way the court could take to resolve the issue is the use of DNA testing. An example of such issue is from the case of Andrews v. State. One type of warrantless search for collecting digital evidence is taking forensic evidence from a suspect. An example is the traffic police, he does not need a search warrant so as to test the alcohol content from the driver’s breath by use of the alco-blow (Shelton, 2011). In this case, wait of warrant may lead to destruction of evidence. It is necessary that the evidence are searched on spot and thus in such as case, no search warrant is required.

Another warrantless search is consent search. The consent is given by another party to conduct the search. An example is at the workplace, the employer can give the consent to the officer to search in his employees’ computer in case of any issue that might need a search.