Evidence Code §§ 1552–1553: Printed Representations of Computer Data and Digital Images
A printout or PDF of data stored on a phone is presumed accurate under Evidence Code § 1552, and a printed digital image is presumed accurate under § 1553. The presumptions shift the burden of producing evidence: if the other side introduces evidence that the printout is inaccurate or unreliable, you must show by a preponderance that it accurately represents the data, which is exactly what hashes, audit logs and a witness to the collection are for.
The statutes
(a) A printed representation of computer information or a computer program is presumed to be an accurate representation of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. If a party to an action introduces evidence that a printed representation of computer information or computer program is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the printed representation is an accurate representation of the existence and content of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent.
(b) Subdivision (a) applies to the printed representation of computer-generated information stored by an automated traffic enforcement system.
(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to computer-generated official records certified in accordance with Section 452.5 or 1530.
Cal. Evid. Code § 1552 (as amended Stats. 2012, ch. 735).
(a) A printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the images it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. If a party to an action introduces evidence that a printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the printed representation is an accurate representation of the existence and content of the images that it purports to represent.
(b) Subdivision (a) applies to the printed representation of video or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system.
Cal. Evid. Code § 1553 (as amended Stats. 2012, ch. 735).
What they mean for text messages
A text message export is "a printed representation of computer information," and a screenshot is "a printed representation of images stored on a ... digital medium." Both start with a presumption of accuracy. The California Supreme Court applied these sections to automated traffic-camera images and data in People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258 and rejected the idea that a higher foundation is needed just because digital files can be manipulated: "No elaborate showing of accuracy is required."
The presumption is rebuttable, and that is where the collection method matters. Once the opponent "introduces evidence that a printed representation ... is inaccurate or unreliable," the burden moves to you to prove accuracy by a preponderance. With a screenshot, the proof is the witness's word. With a device extraction, the proof is the hash recorded at collection, the audit log, chain-of-custody documentation and, if needed, an affidavit or testimony from the provider. See Data integrity and authenticity and Expert witness and affidavits.
Note also § 1552(c): the presumption does not apply to certified official records, which have their own path under §§ 452.5 and 1530; that carve-out does not affect private message exports.
Related sections
§ 1521–1523 secondary evidence · § 1400–1401 authentication · § 250 writing · Hub
Frequently asked questions
Is a printout of text messages presumed accurate in California?
Yes. Under § 1552(a) a printed representation of computer information is presumed accurate, and under § 1553(a) so is a printed digital image such as a screenshot. Both presumptions can be rebutted.
What happens if the other side says the printout was altered?
Once they introduce evidence that it is inaccurate or unreliable, you must prove by a preponderance that the printout accurately represents the data. Hashes, audit logs and a witness to the collection carry that burden; a bare screenshot usually cannot.
Did People v. Goldsmith change the foundation for digital evidence?
It confirmed that no elaborate showing of accuracy is required for digital images and data, and that the § 1552–1553 presumptions affect the burden of producing evidence, not the prosecution's ultimate burden of proof.