Landmark Legal Cases for Cell Phone Forensics - expert witness analysis
- rich4285
- Sep 17
- 2 min read
In this blog I will address landmark cases I have identified that are having a considerable effect on the area of cell phone forensics.
Riley vs. California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, No. 13-132 (2014)
Police arrested David Riley and searched his smartphone without a warrant. They accessed photos, messages, and other digital content stored on the device.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of cell phones during arrest are unconstitutional.
Reason: Phones contain vast personal data and searching them is not comparable to searching physical objects like wallets or bags.
Key Principle:
“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’”
Carpenter vs. US, US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 16–402 (2018)
Context:
FBI obtained cell-site location information (CSLI) from Carpenter’s wireless provider without a warrant.
This data showed his phone’s proximity to robbery locations over 127 days.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that accessing historical location data without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
Even though the data was held by a third party (the phone company), users still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Key Principle:
“A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere.”
US vs. Jamarr Smith, US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, USDC No. 3:21-CR-107-1 (2024)
Fifth Circuit ruling: Geofence warrants are unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment’s particularity and probable cause requirements.
Impact: Law enforcement can no longer use broad location sweeps to identify suspects without individualized suspicion.
Why it matters: Prompted Google to stop providing geofence data, drastically changing investigative tactics.
Pre-indictment Decision - Tower Dumps, US District Court Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, Criminal NO. 3:25-CR-38-CWR-ASH (Feb 2025)
Denied tower dump warrants for being overly broad and lacking probable cause.
Impact: Treated tower dumps as equivalent to geofence warrants, reinforcing the need for targeted, specific searches.
Why it matters: Further narrowed the legal path for bulk mobile data collection.
US vs. Evans, United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, Case No. 10 CR 747-3
Excluded testimony on granulization theory.
Excluded estimation of coverage areas.
Impact:
Estimation of tower coverage areas cannot be admitted unless backed by scientific accepted data.
Excluded claiming a cell phone always connects to the nearest tower – scientifically unreliable and misleading.
Connecticut vs. Onaje Rodney Smith (SC20600)
Overturned denied motion to suppress cell phone evidence on appeal.
Search warrant not supported by probable cause.
Did not describe places to search and things to be seized.
Concluded no link between evidence on phone to the crime.
Warrant did not limit the search of the cell phone to areas within the phone to be searched or a reasonable time frame related to the crimes.
Colorado vs. Christopher Russell Jones, District Court, Larimer County, State of Colorado, Case No.: 2022CR196
Denied use of ZetX TraX software
Few, if any non-judicial uses for ZetX TraX software
Not subjected to peer review
Error rate not supported by evidence
Not generally accepted by scientific community
Admission by other courts/cases not persuasive
Comments