How do FiveM evidence systems work?
A FiveM evidence system records custody of an item as a sequence of append-only entries — collected, logged to a case, transferred, tested, presented — each naming an actor, a timestamp, and a location, validated server-side so a modified client can't insert or remove evidence. The record is designed to be tamper-evident, not tamper-proof: nothing prevents a database administrator from altering rows, but gaps in sequence or missing actors make an altered record visibly suspect.
In one lineA FiveM evidence system, or chain-of-custody script, tracks a piece of evidence through an append-only sequence of custody events — collection, transfer, testing, and presentation — each tied to an actor, a case, and a server timestamp.
The longer answer.
Every custody action — collecting an item, transferring it, logging a test result, presenting it in court roleplay — is a client-reachable endpoint, so the same server-authority rule that governs money and items governs evidence: the server validates the actor's identity, permission, and the action's plausibility before writing a custody entry, rather than trusting a client's claim about what it collected. Without that, a modified client can plant or erase evidence outright.
The record itself should be append-only rather than editable: each state (collected, logged, transferred, tested, presented) is a new entry rather than an edit to a previous one, and a correction is a new entry that references the mistake rather than erasing it. This matters because the people with the most reason to alter a custody record — an officer who mishandled an item, an admin under pressure — are often the people with database access, and an editable history can't distinguish a fix from a cover-up.
The most common failure mode is evidence living as inventory — an item with a quantity and a name and no collector, scene, or time attached — with no link to the case it belongs to. A working system attaches its custody chain to the same case an MDT opens, so a detective or a defense attorney reading the case sees the full timeline in one place rather than reconstructing it from three separate systems and someone's memory of a scene.
Vice Drip's evidence product, ChainLock Evidence, follows this same design: append-only custody entries, server-validated custody events, and a documented attachment to CaseLink MDT's case record. It remains in development, with no runtime proof published — pending Shadow bench — and no purchase path today.
The custody lifecycle in a FiveM evidence script
| State | What happens |
|---|---|
| Collected | An item enters the record with an actor, case reference, location, and server timestamp |
| Logged | The entry attaches to the open case so it's visible from the MDT, not just the evidence resource |
| Transferred | Custody moves between people — locker to detective, detective to lab — as a new entry naming both parties |
| Tested | A lab result is appended, referencing the original item so sample and result stay linked |
| Presented | Presentation in court roleplay is itself a logged entry, closing the loop from scene to verdict |
The checklist.
- 01Ask whether a custody entry can be edited or deleted after creation, and by whom — the answer should be no one, only appended corrections.
- 02Ask exactly which table, export, or event the evidence system shares with the MDT.
- 03Ask how collect, transfer, and present events validate the caller server-side before writing.
- 04Ask what happens to the chain across a resource restart — entries should persist as they happen, not batch on stop.
Where this is covered in full.
People asking this also ask.
Where to go from here.
Published 2026-09-02 · Last reviewed 2026-09-02 · Vice Drip · All answers