Which type of evidence is often used to build a story or context in a Code Case?

Circumstantial evidence is often utilized in code enforcement cases to build a narrative or context surrounding the situation being investigated. This type of evidence does not directly prove a fact but instead contributes to a composite picture by suggesting a connection or relation among various elements of the case. For instance, if a property exhibits signs of neglect, such as overgrown grass or damaged infrastructure, this circumstantial evidence can help establish the likelihood that code violations exist.

Using circumstantial evidence is critical in code cases since it can often illustrate patterns of behavior or conditions that align with existing codes or regulations. While direct evidence provides indisputable proof, such as eyewitness testimony or photographs of a specific violation, circumstantial evidence can help paint a broader picture that supports the case.

In code enforcement scenarios, where direct evidence may not always be available, circumstantial evidence is invaluable for constructing a compelling and comprehensive narrative that helps enforcement officers explain and justify their findings and actions.