According to the CHFI v11 syllabus underRules and Regulations Pertaining to Search and Seizure of EvidenceandACPO Principles of Digital Evidence,Principle 2states thatany person accessing original digital evidence must be competent to do so and able to explain the relevance and implications of their actions. This principle is critical because improper handling of digital evidence—even without malicious intent—can result in accidental alteration, loss of context, or misinterpretation, ultimately jeopardizing evidence integrity and admissibility.

In the given scenario, Detective Smith accessedoriginal datawithout sufficient expertise to understand the implications of his actions. This directly violates Principle 2, as competence is a mandatory requirement when interacting with digital evidence. While the failure to document processes also raises concerns related to auditability, theprimary violationhighlighted is the lack of competency in handling original evidence.

Principle 1 focuses on preventing changes to original data, Principle 3 emphasizes maintaining an audit trail, and Principle 4 assigns responsibility to the investigation lead for overall compliance. However, the root issue here is that an unqualified individual accessed evidence without the necessary knowledge or skills.

CHFI v11 strongly emphasizes adherence to ACPO principles to ensureforensic soundness, transparency, and legal defensibility, makingPrinciple 2the correct and exam-aligned answer