I still carry a field book, but for the most part all it has is job numbers, dates and a bunch of instrument heights and manhole dips. Occasionally I'll sketch something that I'm not able to directly shoot, and rarely I'll make a note regarding a particularly unusual monument, but everything else is either in the raw data file or monument photos.
I've only been in court twice as an expert in a boundary matter, and neither time were my field notes, raw data or photos even mentioned. It was always about my personal observations and conclusions.
With regard to screenshots: while I don't often need to refer to them, I like the Javad convention of automatically storing a screenshot at the beginning of an RTK observation (after the specified number of resets, elapsed time and confidence value have been met) and another at the end of the session.
There is no reason to believe electronic data is worth less than hand written field notes. Both can be wrong, and both can be fraudulent. The judge only cares whether your conclusions are correct of not correct. There should be no discussion of the methods in making your determination.
We use go perform rubbings on control marks the disk and make a sketch with reference marks. I guess somewhat similar to what i kinda remember doing in Colorado for monument records. While in the USMC we still did fill out Field books and forms. So forms for logging angles and distances for traversing and such. Then one day i was tasked with recording the time for different task to allow the officers above do time in motion studies on things. During the time with multiple different crews doing all the sketches and rubbings A light bulb came on. So i had them time me as i set up a total station and used the same compass to orient myself and did a little mapping of everything we were sketching. Also took a digital photo and back to the office. We re created the same exact form and i did the auto linework and measurements in terramodel scaled it to fit the form inserted picture. Not a nickels different in time once we had it down. One of the real smart kids wrote me some type of thing that basically took everything and automatically did most of the coly pasting and filling of form. We sent that with all the other things we had done and the bureaucracy took months going back and forth to see if it was just as legal and such. Like we could only use black ink to do notes period. Not even allowed a pencil in field books. They eventually authorized us to do this but now we had to do both. Hand sketch and digital. I ended up doing the same thing for traversing eventually as all the raw data was recorded and all i needed was it to be placed in the form correctly. Again we did both hand written and stored on the cpu on instrument. I have heard all the arguments myths. Hand written is more legal more accurate. You are less likely to write down the wrong rod height s typing it in. I say it depends. For me knowing i am dyslexic i would rather type than write. I catch my own typos quicker than writing. If I write I write and the book is closed and onto next shot. If I type it in front of me for all the shots and it might be a few dozen shots later before my brain sees it correctly but at-least I caught it. Now for a sketch vs pictures. Sometimes a sketch is wits weight in gold. It does force you to see the details pause ponder what you might have missed while running from one point to another. Also my crews take pictures and i have been able to call them and say hey north east corner of the house there is a well head I don’t see you located that. So both are helpful. I do like and we are slowly implementing it for property corners and other unique items the ability to take a picture and connect it to the point so as i am drawing or qa qc i can just look at it. To describe the monument better like it’s leaning east or above ground etc. I actually considered adding it as a attribute requirement for certain things but crawl walk run. My two crew chiefs have only used Trimble period now for 6 months so the learning is coming along. I have one who has used nothing but carlson and it has been a big change for him.
@not-my-real-name The rules of evidence are consistent across many jurisdictions. If the other side objects and the notes do not meet the standard, the Judge has no choice but to exclude them. I've had that objection in a hearing and prevailed.
Take notes that refer to the digital files. Make sure they have enough common data to tie them together with certainty. It's cheap insurance.
On the flipside, if you are arguing objections something else has already gone sideways...
Had to find the old 2018 article again, but:
Since 2017, the Federal Rules of Evidence have specifically addressed digital/electronic evidence with two new items in Rule 902. Evidence that is Self-Authenticating. It seems that if an attorney isn't able to get a licensed surveyor's electronic field notes admitted into evidence as a 'record of regularly conducted activity (Rule 803.6)', then either a different attorney is needed or the opposition was able to show that the surveyor/surveyor's records were not trustworthy.
There is no reason to believe electronic data is worth less than hand written field notes. Both can be wrong, and both can be fraudulent. The judge only cares whether your conclusions are correct of not correct. There should be no discussion of the methods in making your determination.
I've had very different experiences where the weight given to conclusions rested on descriptions and explanations of methods. If experts testify to very different conclusions, the judge or (rarely) jury needs something to use to decide which conclusion is more credible.
When and if your testimony and that of any opposing expert gets to that level, a clean and easily understandable set of notes will reflect favorably in that a surveyor who produces good notes with enough detail and clarity that the judge can have some modicum of understanding of what they notes represent is more likely to have been more diligent in other areas of the survey including research, analysis and other aspects of the field work.
Had to find the old 2018 article again, but:
Since 2017, the Federal Rules of Evidence have specifically addressed digital/electronic evidence with two new items in Rule 902. Evidence that is Self-Authenticating. It seems that if an attorney isn't able to get a licensed surveyor's electronic field notes admitted into evidence as a 'record of regularly conducted activity (Rule 803.6)', then either a different attorney is needed or the opposition was able to show that the surveyor/surveyor's records were not trustworthy.
Had a very frustrating experience on the stand about 10 or 12 years ago. the case was focusing on negligence and on misrepresentation by another surveyor and I had been retained to review the work. I was on the stand interpreting the electronic field notes for the judge when the opposing party, representing himself, jumps up and theatrically proclaims "Youuur Honor, I object. There are thousands of different data collector programs and this witness cannot possibly be familiar with all of them!"
The attorney on my client's side gets up and starts trying to argue based on technical issues with a lengthy back and forth between the other side, my client's attorney and the judge. The whole time, I'm trying to subtly indicate to the attorney that he needs to ask me, but he's so wrapped up in hearing himself argue that he misses it altogether and eventually got out lawyered and overruled by the judge so that I never get to state that I had several years of direct experience with that very common DC program and point out that at the top of Page 1, it said "Tripod Data Systems ver. 4.1"
Just in case there are any attorneys reading this and you haven't already identified my client's attorney's obvious blunder... Whenever the other side challenges your expert's knowledge or opinion, the very next thing you do, make that the only thing you consider doing should be saying "Mr. (or Ms.) Expert, would you explain the basis of your knowledge (or opinion) to the court?". Trust that your expert has a good basis and is in the best position to offer an explanation of it.
Seems like something you'd get in Civ Pro 101. My wife (McGeorge Law, Order of the Coif, national Moot Court finalist, 25 yrs experience) agreed. So even as a simple surveyor, I feel pretty solid in that opinion.
@jon-payne Two issues here.
First, few cases are elevated to the federal courts. Some are, so I'll give you that.
Second, the rule will not allow the record if the opposing party can denonstrate it is 'untrustworthy'. Without contemporaneous notes meeting the rules of evidence, this is cake. Nobody can say with a straight face they do not encounter errors in dc files. On the flipside if you have notes backing up the hand entered data and key settings it should be in.
Don't get me wrong here. We use data collectors on nearly every job with field to finish on most. I just can't fathom why someone would cheap out saving ten minutes on a days work. It's cheap insurance and ups the quality of the work...
@thebionicman I would have to disagree that the first issue is an issue. The theory of policy diffusion suggests that the federal rules were either influenced by or will influence the rules in other jurisdictions. Just looked it up and the items discussed in the federal rules were in the Kentucky rules. The self-authenticating section is nearly verbatim.
The second issue may depend on jurisdiction, but an original document in the Kentucky rules includes a print out readable by sight of a file on a computer or similar device. That would indicate that the data collected field notes, printed out, are the original field notes. As to untrustworthy, no one should be able to say with a straight face that they haven't encountered an error in a set of hand written notes either. So if that was the sole reason a digital set of notes were inadmissible, then, as stated above, a new (better) attorney is needed.
The whole time, I'm trying to subtly indicate to the attorney that he needs to ask me
I'm not that polite. When an opposing attorney balked at my claim that the photographs he had introduced into evidence had no measurement value (because they were taken from oblique angles by uncalibrated cameras with no ground control) he said, "Objection your Honor, the witness is not an expert in photography and has no basis to make that statement" -- I didn't wait for my client's attorney to intervene, I simply blurted out "Your Honor, photogrammetry is a branch of land surveying under California law, and as a licensee I'm responsible for having a basic grasp of the principles involved." The judge immediately replied, "There's basis, overruled."
Jim, I had already done very similar in that case a couple of times between the surveyor on the other side making absurd claims and my client's attorney's buffoonery and incompetence. The judge had chided me somewhat gently the first time and somewhat more sternly the second (or was it third?) time. I could see that his patience was about where mine was with the overall chaos going on in front of him and I didn't think it wise for me to add to it (again).
I tried to quietly point out the "TDS ver 4.1" to the judge, but he was having none of that. Maybe he was getting fed up with the attorney's incompetence and decided that he should lose the argument unless he figured out the correct path of action pretty quick.
As to Rules of Evidence, some states have simply adopted the Federal Rules wholesale. Others, like CA, more or less adopted them by restating them within their own statutes, I suppose so that they could independently tweak them here or there to reflect the political winds in vogue during any given legislative session.
I just looked up Idaho's and it's the Wild West here. The rules are set by the judge just prior to the trial. No codified set of rules.
In my case, it may have helped that the judge and I had spent many hours together in the bleachers watching our sons play baseball. That, and the fact that my client's attorney was very good, while the other side's lawyer was the buffoon.
