5 ms·
You go to court with facts, not a compelling story of how you acquired the facts. If the defense believes the facts are not correct they can challenge the metho
by mike_d 3y ago
You go to court with facts, not a compelling story of how you acquired the facts. If the defense believes the facts are not correct they can challenge the method of collection, at which point the expert witnesses are called to describe to the court how collection is performed.
Not that any of this matters anyway. Cellebrite doesn't let you extract from modern phones anymore. You send it to a lab and get back an image you dump into physical analyzer. The actual exploitation of the phones is done by them so they don't have to worry about leaks.
- kstrauser 3y ago> You go to court with facts, not a compelling story of how you acquired the facts. That’s not correct. Check out parallel construction[0] to see the lengths cops will go to in order to make it look like they have a plausible process to have acquired evidence. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- mike_d 3y agoThere are plenty of indictments you can read on the internet. It is rare for one to state how evidence was collected unless it is material to the facts of the case. The defense can question or challenge the methods, but that is not a material part of the prosecutions case. As for parallel construction, Herring v. US opened it up as a legitimate investigative process.
- saagarjha 3y agoNo it didn’t. It only allowed it in case of a good-faith mistake, which is very different from intentionally using a Cellebrite to capture evidence illegally.
- runnerup 3y agoCellebrite’s internal processes would still be subject to discovery. Defendants have a right to show that the extraction process was flawed otherwise it could lead to wrongful convictions. Secret / Magic / black box processes can’t generate admissible evidence in criminal proceedings in the US.
- flir 3y ago> Secret / Magic / black box processes can’t generate admissible evidence in criminal proceedings in the US. Speed cameras?
- revscat 3y agoTraffic violations have, I believe, a lower standard of evidence than criminal cases. I am very much not a lawyer, though.
- landemva 3y agoTraffic typically has lower standards because it is in county court with a clown presiding as magistrate. It becomes too expensive to appeal and if you aren't an attorney you will immediately lose because they know you are unlikely to again appeal.
- crote 3y agoSpeed cameras are usually tested and certified by an independent third party. With proper cause, there's probably a pretty good chance you could get an expert to review the design files after signing an NDA.
- mike_d 3y agoDefendants do have that right, and in practice Cellebrite has a handful of expert witnesses they will send out to answer the courts questions. In this case there is no "black box" because the Cellebrite has been litigated previously and is known to the court. If you want to challenge the reliability or accuracy of the process you need to have some basis to show the judge there is a thread to pull on and it isn't just a fishing expedition. For an idea of how courts handle this, look at breathalyzers. People occasionally get the bright idea to ask to inspect the source code of the machine, and it is routinely denied because it is not in the possession of the prosecution. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wjlta https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- 3y ago
- tamimio 3y ago>You go to court with facts, not a compelling story of how you acquired the facts. False, chain of custody is needed, or .. cough cough .. bad cops will set you up.