How We Beat the Government’s Cell Tower Cop!

For many years, the government has been relying on incorrect assumptions, fabricated data, and some magic shows. Now you’re probably wondering how it got to this point. The playbook is:

1. Invent a pseudoscience from scratch, such as historical cell site analysis.
2. Recruit former cops to develop software that automates the process.
3. Create software certifications restricted only to law enforcement.
4. Establish a specialized law enforcement only training academy and train individuals in a phased rollout.
5. Deploy the pseudoscience in less sophisticated U.S. court systems where scrutiny is minimal, or where defense experts are less likely to challenge the pseudoscience, or in areas where there are heavy ex-cops working as defense experts who will most likely agree with their pseudoscience.
6. Publicly boast about their “successes.”
7. Gradually allow select naïve ex-cops who now work as defense experts into the training school.
8. Argue in court that both prosecution and defense rely on the software and methods.
9. Insist that only certified individuals can testify.
10. Rebrand raw data, such as telco call detail records or cell phone data, with proprietary names tied to the software company (CellHawk Data, Cellebrite Data, CASTViz Data).
11. Gain a heavy hand in scientific working groups and inject the flawed science and data that aligns with their theories, then obtain consensus with those who don’t know the science.

I had the privilege of testifying in Rockford, Illinois, alongside Christopher DeRango and Melinda Jacobson regarding AT&T NELOS records and historical cell site analysis. As a recognized expert in cellular technology qualified in various states, the court ruled, “Mr. Garrett was qualified as an expert to the extreme” and “I have allowed AT&T NELOS in the past because no one ever challenged it before; the defense did here. IT’S OUT!”

Here’s a breakdown of how we effectively unraveled the prosecution’s cellular evidence:

1. The government submitted records they called CellHawk data, depicting pie-shaped wedges on a map where they represented it as depicting the cell tower coverage. They also plotted what they determined the range to be.
2. I explained that there is no such thing as CellHawk Data and that it is simply a made-up term. The court agreed and said that it was the cellular companies’ data.
3. I testified about CellHawk and that it does not perform any calculations or estimations, and that there is no science behind what it is doing. It simply plots a wedge on a map aligned with the antenna’s azimuth from the cell records, centered on the site’s latitude and longitude.
4. I testified that the 120-degree wedge is inaccurate and the depicted range is flawed. We previously drive-tested the area with the same equipment used by the cellular operator to certify their network. I demonstrated how the two cell antennas cover primarily the same area and how the phone most likely did not move, but changed cell towers. Both towers covered the house and the crime scene.