Experience the Difference Firsthand
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
.png)
A vendor's own marketing page saying its product is good is background noise. A sitting district attorney telling every law enforcement agency in his county to use a specific platform is a different kind of signal, because prosecutors don't have much incentive to publicly endorse a tool that doesn't actually make their caseload easier to manage.
That's what happened in Vernon County, Wisconsin, where District Attorney Timothy Gaskell encouraged the county's law enforcement partners to adopt iCrimeFighter, citing four specific, practical reasons rather than a general endorsement. Those four reasons are worth taking seriously on their own terms, because they map closely to the actual friction points that show up in the relationship between law enforcement agencies and the prosecutors who depend on the evidence those agencies produce.
The first reason cited was straightforward: with case files immediately accessible to all relevant parties, including law enforcement, prosecutors, and eventually defense counsel, through a shared platform, the discovery process stops depending on a chain of individual handoffs.
This matters more than it might sound like on first read. Discovery in a criminal case is a legal obligation with real deadlines attached, and in a traditional workflow, getting evidence from a patrol officer's device into a form a defense attorney can review might pass through three or four separate people and formats along the way — an officer's upload, a records clerk's compilation, a prosecutor's review, and finally a physical or digital transfer to defense counsel. Each handoff is a place where something can be delayed, miscommunicated, or simply forgotten in a high-volume office. A platform where the relevant parties can access case files directly, within their appropriate permissions, removes several of those handoff points entirely rather than just making each one faster.
The second reason, responsive customer service, reads as almost too basic to include in a formal recommendation, but it's actually one of the more telling signals in the whole endorsement. Prosecutor's offices, especially in smaller and rural counties, don't typically have dedicated IT staff sitting a few desks away. When something isn't working correctly with a shared evidence system in the middle of active casework, the difference between a vendor that resolves the issue quickly and one that leaves a support ticket sitting for days is the difference between a minor hiccup and a genuine disruption to case preparation.
A DA's office citing support responsiveness as a specific reason for its recommendation is effectively saying the platform doesn't just work well when everything goes smoothly; it holds up when something needs to be fixed under time pressure, which is a more meaningful endorsement than praise for the interface alone.
The third reason ties directly into something worth dwelling on: with evidence stored on AWS GovCloud infrastructure, there's no need to burn discs or spend time on physical transport, and the platform maintains a complete chain-of-custody record for every item. This is where the practical and the evidentiary benefits overlap. Eliminating disc production saves real staff time, but the chain-of-custody tracking is arguably the more consequential piece for a prosecutor specifically, since a documented, timestamped access trail is something a DA's office can point to directly if evidence handling is ever challenged in court. A disc handed off with a signature on a log sheet is a weaker record than an automated trail showing exactly who accessed a file and when.
The fourth reason, case histories being easily available in one place, sounds like a convenience feature until you consider what discovery prep actually looks like in a busy prosecutor's office. Before a case goes to trial, or even before a plea negotiation, a prosecutor typically needs to reconstruct the full timeline of what evidence exists, when it was collected, and whether anything is still outstanding. When that history is scattered across a records system, an evidence locker log, and a handful of email threads, reconstructing it is its own time-consuming task before the actual case preparation can begin. A single, centralized case history removes that reconstruction step, which compounds in value as caseloads grow.
Vendor testimonials from private-sector customers are common and easy to discount. A public recommendation from a district attorney's office carries different weight, for a simple reason: prosecutors and law enforcement agencies don't share the exact same incentives. An agency might value a platform for how easily officers can use it in the field. A prosecutor's office values a platform for how defensible and complete the evidence is once it reaches them. When both sides of that relationship find the same tool worth recommending, it suggests the platform is solving problems on both ends of the evidence pipeline, not just optimizing for whichever side happens to be the buyer.
Please refer to the entire recommendation here.
Vernon County is a centrally located county in Wisconsin. Its District Attorney's Office represents the State of Wisconsin and the county in criminal court proceedings, working directly with the county's law enforcement agencies on the cases those agencies bring forward, which is the working relationship this recommendation grew out of.
The recommendation as documented is specific to Vernon County's District Attorney's Office and its law enforcement partners. It reflects one county's direct experience rather than a statewide mandate or policy.
Not usually a formal say, since procurement decisions are typically made by individual law enforcement agencies. However, because prosecutors are the primary downstream users of the evidence those agencies produce, their feedback and preferences often carry significant informal weight in these decisions.
It refers to an automated log of who accessed, uploaded, downloaded, or modified a piece of evidence, and when. This creates a documented record that can be referenced if the handling of evidence is ever questioned during a case.
GovCloud is built to meet the regulatory and compliance requirements expected of government agencies handling sensitive data, which gives both law enforcement and prosecutors a level of infrastructure assurance beyond what a standard commercial cloud environment typically offers.
Based on how the discovery process was described, defense counsel can be given access to relevant case files through the platform's sharing capability, though typically with permissions scoped to what's been formally shared for their case rather than unrestricted access to the full system.
It's relatively uncommon, since most testimonials in this space are shortened marketing quotes rather than full documented recommendations. A complete, referenceable letter gives agencies evaluating the platform more to work with than a brief endorsement pulled out of context.
BWCs, mobile extractions, photos, and more. One secure platform with a complete audit trail.
Free TrialSee it on your own cases.
