- Free Consultation: (813) 222-2220 Tap Here to Call Us
Cell Phone Tracking
Understanding Cell Phone Tracking in Legal Contexts
Introduction
Cell phone tracking has become a crucial tool in modern forensic investigations. This technology can provide valuable data in legal cases, helping to establish the movements and locations of individuals. However, understanding the nuances of cell phone tracking, especially in legal contexts, requires careful consideration. This guide will help you navigate the complexities of cell phone tracking, its legal implications, and how to choose the right attorney for your case.
If you or a loved one is facing legal challenges involving cell phone tracking, call W. F. Casey Ebsary Jr. at 813-222-2220 or use our online contact form to schedule a free consultation.
What is Cell Phone Tracking?
Cell phone tracking refers to the process of identifying the location of a cell phone using various methods. This can include GPS tracking, triangulation using cell towers, and analyzing call data records (CDRs). Law enforcement agencies often use these techniques to gather evidence in criminal investigations.
How Cell Phone Tracking Works
GPS Tracking
GPS tracking involves using satellite signals to determine the precise location of a device. This method is highly accurate and can provide real-time location data.
Cell Tower Triangulation
Triangulation uses the signal strength from multiple cell towers to approximate the location of a phone. While less precise than GPS, it can still offer valuable location information.
Call Data Records (CDRs)
CDRs contain metadata about phone calls, such as the time and duration of calls and the cell towers used during the call. Analyzing this data can help determine the general location of a phone over time.
Legal Considerations in Cell Phone Tracking
Admissibility of Evidence
Courts have generally accepted cell phone tracking data as admissible evidence, provided it meets certain reliability standards. For instance, in United States v. Morgan, the court noted that experts do not need in-depth knowledge of the algorithms underlying their technological tools to testify about the outputs of those tools. Here are a few quotes from important cases in the cell phone tracking space.
Defendant also objects that because Agent Horan “cannot explain how the data collected during a drive test is translated into the shaded areas on the drive test maps, SA Horan is not qualified as an expert to speak about the accuracy of those maps.” (Post–Hr’g Br. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 80, (“Def.’s Post–Hr’g Br.”) at 2.) However, this Court does not require an expert to have an in-depth knowledge of all the algorithms underlying their technological tools—such as hardware and software—to reliably testify about the outputs of those tools.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-morgan-290
Forensic investigation increasingly requires the use of computer software or other technological devices for the extraction of data. While an investigator must have specialized knowledge in the use of the particular software or device, it is not required—nor is it practical—for an investigator to have expertise in or knowledge about the underlying programming, mathematical formulas, or other innerworkings of the software.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-morgan-290
State v. Pratt , 200 Vt. 64, 128 A.3d 883, 891–92 (2015) (surveying multiple cases involving the use of computer software and other technological devices for the extraction of data); In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. , 978 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ; see also Gardner v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 507 F.2d 525, 528 (10th Cir. 1974) (noting that an expert “should not be required to satisfy an overly narrow test of his own qualifications”).
United States v. Morgan, 292 F. Supp. 3d 475, 484-85 (D.D.C. 2018)
Reliability of Data
The reliability of cell phone tracking data can be affected by several factors, including the technology used and the expertise of the analyst. In Williams v. State, the court found that the lack of knowledge about the error rate of the methodology did not impact the reliability of the analyst’s opinions.
Expert Testimony
Experts in cell phone tracking must demonstrate proficiency in using the relevant technology, though they are not required to understand every technical detail. This principle was upheld in multiple cases, including McMillian v. State and United States v. Hill.
Top Five Things to Consider When Hiring a Cell Phone Tracking Lawyer
| Consideration | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Experience in Technology | Ensure the lawyer has experience handling cases involving complex technological evidence. |
| Track Record | Look for a proven track record of successfully defending clients in cases involving cell phone tracking. |
| Understanding of Law | The lawyer should have a deep understanding of the legal standards for admissibility of evidence. |
| Expert Network | A strong network of reliable experts in technology and forensic analysis can be crucial. |
| Communication Skills | The ability to explain complex technological concepts in understandable terms is essential. |
If you or a loved one is facing legal challenges involving cell phones, call W. F. Casey Ebsary Jr. at 813-222-2220 or use our online contact form to schedule a free consultation.
Top Five Defenses Against Cell Phone Tracking Evidence
- Challenging the Technology’s Reliability
- Argue that the technology used to track the cell phone is unreliable or outdated.
- Highlight any lack of peer-reviewed validation for the specific methods used.
- Questioning the Expert’s Qualifications
- Scrutinize the qualifications and experience of the expert witness presenting the cell phone evidence.
- Argue that the expert lacks the necessary expertise to provide reliable testimony.
- Highlighting Errors in Data Collection
- Point out any potential errors or inconsistencies in the data collection process.
- Argue that these errors could significantly affect the accuracy of the tracking data.
- Arguing Lack of Specificity
- Emphasize that tracking cannot provide an exact location, only a general area.
- Argue that this lack of specificity undermines the prosecution’s case.
- Questioning the Chain of Custody
- Examine the chain of custody for the tracking data.
- Argue that any breaks or inconsistencies in the chain of custody could compromise the integrity of the evidence.
Case Study: Understanding the Application of Cell Phone Tracking in Court
The Detective’s Testimony
In a recent cell phone tracking case, a detective testified about using a cell phone tracking program to map the defendant’s movements. The program created an illustration based on an algorithm “using field scans or radio frequency coverage and other field tests that are used to provide a cellular network pattern based off handoffs, subscriber density, tower density, network capacity, elevation, and terrain.” Although the detective did not know the underlying algorithm, he was able to demonstrate the technology’s reliability through his field tests.
Court Rulings on Cell Phone Evidence
Courts have consistently ruled that experts are not required to have in-depth knowledge of all the algorithms underlying their technological tools to testify about the outputs of those tools. This principle was upheld in United States v. Morgan, where the court found that the detective’s lack of knowledge about the error rate did not impact the reliability of his testimony. Similarly, in Williams v. State, the court concluded that the plotting software’s error rate did not affect the reliability of the analyst’s opinions.
The Morgan court ruled, “The detective testified that the program creates an illustration based on an algorithm “using field scans or radio frequency coverage and other field tests that are used to provide a cellular network pattern based off handoffs, subscriber density, tower density, network capacity, elevation and terrain.” The detective did not know the underlying algorithm used to create the mapping output. An expert is not required “to have an in-depth knowledge of all the algorithms underlying their technological tools—such as hardware and software—to reliably testify about the outputs of those tools.” United States v. Morgan , 292 F. Supp. 3d 475, 485 (D.D.C. 2018).”
“Forensic investigation increasingly requires the use of computer software or other technological devices for the extraction of data. While an investigator must have specialized knowledge in the use of the particular software or device, it is not required—nor is it practical—for an investigator to have expertise in or knowledge about the underlying programming, mathematical formulas, or other innerworkings of the software.”
https://casetext.com/case/walker-v-state-122484Id. (citation omitted).
https://casetext.com/case/walker-v-state-122484
Importance of Reliable Testimony
The reliability of testimony based on cell phone tracking data has been affirmed in several cases. In McMillian v. State, the court noted that the basic principles of cellular technology have been widely accepted and admitted into evidence.
Under section 90.702, Florida Statutes (2010), expert testimony is defined as “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Additionally, “[t]he basic principles of cellular technology have been widely accepted and admitted into evidence.” Gosciminski v. State , 132 So.3d 678, 697 (Fla. 2013). Moreover, this Court has held that non-experts may testify about phone records. See Gordon v. State , 863 So.2d 1215, 1219 (Fla. 2003) (stating that testimony about cell phone records and comparing them to locations on cell site maps was not expert testimony and was properly admitted); Perez v. State , 980 So.2d 1126, 1131–32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (ruling that cell phone records, cell site maps, and testimony explaining them was properly admitted and did not constitute expert testimony).
McMillian v. State, 214 So. 3d 1274, 1288 (Fla. 2017)
In United States v. Hill, the court found that district courts have almost universally admitted historical cell-site analysis.
District courts that have been called upon to decide whether to admit historical cell-site analysis have almost universally done so. See United States v. Jones,918 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C.2013) (collecting cases). Ironically, one of the few exceptions involved Agent Raschke himself. See United States v. Evans,892 F.Supp.2d 949, 956 (N.D.Ill.2012) (admitting traditional historical cell-site analysis, but rejecting Raschke’s novel and “wholly untested” theory of “granulization”). The government argues that the numerous district court decisions to admit historical cell-site analysis constitute “general acceptance” of the technique. But judicial acceptance is not relevant; what matters is general acceptance in the relevant expert (scientific or otherwise) community. See Daubert,509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786; Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner,522 U.S. 136, 148, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[J]udges are not scientists and do not have the scientific training that can facilitate the making of such decisions.”).
United States v. Hill, 818 F.3d 289, 297 (7th Cir. 2016)
Conclusion
Tracking is a powerful tool in modern forensic investigations, but it comes with its own set of legal challenges. Understanding the technology, its limitations, and how it is treated in court is crucial for anyone facing legal issues involving cell phone tracking.
Choosing the right attorney is vital. Ensure they have the necessary experience, a strong track record, and the ability to communicate complex technological concepts clearly. If you or a loved one is facing legal challenges involving cell phone tracking, don’t hesitate to seek expert legal advice.
Call W. F. Casey Ebsary Jr. at 813-222-2220 or use our online contact form to schedule a free consultation.
Understanding your rights and having the right legal representation can make all the difference in your case.