> > I would imagine that for digital, the same scenario would be played out. As > long as they aren't altered, and the photographer says they represent his > recollection of the scene photographed, digital would, imho, be admissable.
That's about the strength of it. The picture per se is *not* evidence, but is generally allowed to be introduced into evidence as a visual depiction of facts sworn to by a police officer (and who is available for cross-examination). There are special rules to deal with unaccompanied images such as those taken by automatic speeding cameras.
