Since George Wendt isn't around the forums anymore, I guess I'll put in my $.02.
Actually, there haven't been any cases in the US court system disallowing digital photos. I've done all kinds of research, talked to many different agencies/jurisdictions, and I've not found, nor has anyone ever been able to give me a case citation where they've been thrown out. One of the first things they do with photos is ask you if they are a true and accurate representation of the scene (or whatever the subject) at the time the photograph was taken whether it was digital
or film. Regardless of the medium, any attempts at tampering with a photo is the same as tampering with any other evidence, and the consequences aren't good.
Many agencies are going to digital photography since the storage medium is cheap, no precessing fees, pictures are easily printed/reproduced, and they can be easily inserted into reports and Power Point presentations for courtroom testimony.
Modern equipment has an incredible quality. Personally, I use a Sony Mavica CD 1000 that uses mini-CD's to store the pictures on. After the disk is full (about 150 pics depending on resolution) it's "finalized", and the disk can be stored in the case file. I usually make a copy of the pics CD for my working file, so if it's lost or damaged, I've still got the originals available, and I just make another copy. My CD 1000 is pretty much outdated (and worn out)at 2.1 megapixels, but they've got a new model
(CD 500) that's smaller and snaps at 5 megapixels. If you shop around, you can find them for under $500.
There are other models out there, but I find the CD storage to be perfect for what I do.