Trayvon Martin's Cellphone Records

[MJW]

Police reports should be more reliable than advertising claims.

No report I've seen specifically mentions the Cellebrite, other than the one on the first night, when the phone was non-functional.  There was that report by Steve Brenton on the phone that wasn't initially turned over to the defense, but we haven't seen it, so we don't know if the Cellebrite was used, or if it was, why it didn't work to bypass the password.

[MJW]

Once they had him indentified the next morning, that may have made a difference in what they're legally allowed to do, because they might no longer have been able to argue exigent circumstances for something where otherwise they'd need a search warrant.

That's a good point, but I don't think they needed a warrant. The police report on page 16 of the 184 page PDF says the police concluded they didn't, probably because the phone's owner was no longer living.

[nomatter_nevermind]

No report I've seen specifically mentions the Cellebrite, other than the one on the first night

So the SPD lost theirs, and the FDLE and SAO haven't been able to get another one in all this time?

[MJW]

So the SPD lost theirs, and the FDLE and SAO haven't been able to get another one in all this time?

So Cellebrite just outright lies about the functionality of their device? I can offer unlikely conjectures, too, but it gets us no closer to knowing why the police and prosecutors can't get the information off the phone.

[MJW]

One thing I'd expect to see in discovery, no matter what else, is communication between the police agencies and Cellebrite technical support on if and how the phone data can be extracted and decoded.

[nomatter_nevermind]

So Cellebrite just outright lies about the functionality of their device? I can offer unlikely conjectures, too, but it gets us no closer to knowing why the police and prosecutors can't get the information off the phone.

I won't be too surprised if the advertising or the police reports turn out to be inaccurate.

I was just trying to understand the logic of your response.

If an early report shows the SPD had access to a Cellebrite, and later reports show they were unable to do certain things, then the Cellebrite can't do those things, or they no longer had access to one, or the reports are incorrect.

Am I missing something?

[MJW]

Am I missing something?

Not really. My point was simply that Cellebrite seems to say their gadget can access and decode the phone information, and nothing we've seen from the police explains why they can't. I'm really getting impatient with the lack of transparency in the discovery, given Florida's sunshine law requirements. Why haven't we at least seen a redacted version of Steve Brenton's report? Or anything from the 9th discovery supplement? Or the list of discovery in the 11th supplement?

[nomatter_nevermind]

I've thought of another possibility. Maybe the LEOs don't have enough technicians who know how to make the Cellebrite do everything it can do.

[MJW]

I've thought of another possibility. Maybe the LEOs don't have enough technicians who know how to make the Cellebrite do everything it can do.

That's why I'd expect to see some communication between the police and the Cellebrite technical support staff.

[FromBelow]

As I understand it the Cellebrite would only be able to bypass the security if the phone's USB debugging is turned on. Do people usually do that?

[unitron]

That's a good point, but I don't think they needed a warrant. The police report on page 16 of the 184 page PDF says the police concluded they didn't, probably because the phone's owner was no longer living.

The phone's user is deceased, but the argument can be made that the owner has always been Tracy Martin, and not his late son.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I thought the most likely reason they wouldn't need a warrant to explore the phone was that the phone itself had already been properly seized as evidence found at a crime scene. But IANAL.

[nomatter_nevermind]

The police report on page 16 of the 184 page PDF says the police concluded they didn't, probably because the phone's owner was no longer living.

To clarify this point, the report says the decision was made on 2/28, which is after Trayvon Martin was identified.

I don't think needing to identify a homicide victim would be an exigent circumstance.

[MJW]

Unitron's and nomamtter_nevermind's comments make me realize how little I actually know about the detailed rules for when a warrant is required and when it's not. I think there should be a difference between when a cell phone can be seized as an object and when the information on the cell phone can be accessed. I know, though, that the California supreme court held awhile ago that police can search the entire contents of a cell phone without a warrant, incident to an arrest. (I think that ruling would very possibly be overturned if it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

[MJW]

This timeline may be helpful in understanding the call sequence. Keep in mind the call start times are rounded down and the end times are rounded up. "ND.nonTMob" stands for North Dade, non-T-Mobile.  Zimmerman's NEN call is shown, with the times rounded like the other calls.


6:30 TM->DD
6:31   |
6:32   |
6:33   |
6:34   |
6:35   |
6:36   |
6:37   |
6:38   |
6:39   |
6:40   |
6:41   |      TMob->TM
6:42   |        |
6:43   |        |
6:44            |
6:45 TM->DD
6:46   |      TM->ND.nonTMob
6:47   |        |
6:48   |        |
6:49 DD->TM
6:50   |
6:51   |
6:52   |
6:53   |      TM->DD
6:54 DD->TM   TM->DD
6:55   |        |
6:56   |                     
6:57   |
6:58   |
6:59   |
7:00   |
7:01   |
7:02   |
7:03   |
7:04   |      nonTMob->TM
7:05   |        |
7:06   |
7:07   |
7:08   |      *Text->TM*
7:09   |      (Z's NEN Call)
7:10   |        \
7:11   |        /
7:12 DD->TM     \
7:13   |        /
7:14   |        \
7:15   |
7:16   |