Obtaining Evidence
What steps must law enforcement take to obtain a smartphone under Florida law without violating the Fourth Amendment?
Obtain a search warrant with specific probable cause.
The warrant must describe the phone and data sought with particularity to avoid overbroad searches. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), and Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2013) reinforce this requirement.
What is the best practice for authenticating text messages in Florida courts?
Provide metadata, testimony, and contextual evidence.
Florida Evidence Code § 90.901 requires sufficient evidence to establish the message's origin and authenticity. Lamb v. State, 246 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) emphasizes corroboration.
True or False: Protecting the integrity of the data is the primary concern when collecting digital evidence from smartphones?
True
Any alteration can jeopardize admissibility. Forensic tools maintain an unbroken chain of custody
True or False: When an attorney presents text messages in court printed copies should be used without accompanying metadata.
False: Use printed copies with accompanying metadata.
Florida courts prefer formatted exhibits supported by forensic evidence and witness testimony.
True or False: Deepfake technology complicates smartphone evidence because it undermines the reliability of video and audio.
True.
Because it undermines the reliability of video and audio, Florida courts may require expert testimony to authenticate digitally altered media.
True or False: In order to obtain a subpoena to access text message metadata from a cellular provider, the requestor must make a narrowly tailored request specifying dates, times, and parties.
True
Under Fla. Stat. § 934.23, metadata may be obtained with a subpoena, but content requires a warrant due to privacy protections
What role does forensic software play in authenticating smartphone evidence?
It preserves metadata and provides a digital audit trail.
Tools like Cellebrite generate reports admissible under Florida's business records exception (§ 90.803(6)).
Name one protocol for ensuring proper chain of custody with smartphone evidence.
Use tamper-evident bags and detailed evidence logs.
Florida Evidence Code § 90.901 underscores the importance of preventing unauthorized access.
Ture or False: Arguments for violations of the Fourth Amendment or Florida Statues Chapter 934 can be made to exclude improperly obtained smartphone evidence.
True.
Violations of the Fourth Amendment or Florida Statutes Chapter 934.
Evidence obtained unlawfully may be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.
True or False: Artificial intelligence can assist in data sorting and pattern recognition when analyzing smartphone evidence.
True.
AI assists in data sorting and pattern recognition. These tools help lawyers identify relevant data quickly, but admissibility remains subject to judicial scrutiny.
How can private parties legally obtain text message evidence during discovery?
Use a request for production or subpoena duces tecum.
Explanation: Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6) and 1.350 govern these requests.
True or false: Opposing counsel can challenge the authenticity of text messages by questioning the chain of custody or metadata.
True
Florida courts may exclude messages if the chain of custody is incomplete or alterations are alleged. See State v. Power, 321 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).
How should lawyers handle encrypted messages obtained during discovery?
Obtain decryption keys or court orders for decryption.
Florida courts balance privacy interests with evidentiary needs when issuing decryption orders. See Fla. Stat. § 934.23.
When cross-examining a witness about sending text messages, what is a critical question to ask?
"Can you confirm that you sent this message?"
Direct confirmation strengthens or undermines the message's authenticity.
True or False: Cloud-based backups can impact smartphone evidence collection.
True
Because cloud-based backups can introduce additional sources of data, subpoenas must specify cloud providers to access complete records.
What specific Florida statute governs law enforcement's ability to use real-time cellphone tracking?
Fla. Stat. § 934.42.
This law requires a warrant supported by probable cause to use real-time location tracking devices.
What testimony is required to authenticate a screenshot of a text message?
The recipient or sender must confirm its accuracy.
Direct testimony verifies the content aligns with the original message. See § 90.901, Fla. Stat.
True or False: Copies of smartphone data are equally admissible as the original.
True, under certain conditions.
Florida Evidence Code § 90.953 allows duplicates if no genuine question of authenticity arises.
True or False: Highlighting consistencies between the witness’s testimony and metadata is a strategy that can be used to impeach a witness with smartphone evidence.
False. Highlight inconsistencies between their testimony and metadata.
Metadata provides objective proof to challenge credibility
True or False: Blockchain technology can be used to verify the chain of custody for digital evidence.
True
Blockchain creates immutable records, ensuring transparency and reliability.
True or False: In Florida, exigent circumstances can justify smartphone searches without a warrant.
True, but only under limited conditions.
Courts narrowly apply the exigent circumstances exception to prevent evidence destruction or protect public safety. See Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013).
True or False: Testimony alone is sufficient to authenticate a text message in Florida.
False.
Florida courts often require additional evidence, such as metadata or corroborating testimony, to ensure reliability.
What is the forensic term for preserving all data on a smartphone at a specific point in time?
Imaging
Imaging creates an exact digital replica, ensuring data integrity during analysis
True or False: Smartphone evidence can be used to refresh a witness's recollection.
True
Explanation: Florida Evidence Code § 90.613 allows documents or records to refresh recollection.
BONUS QUESTION:
What landmark Supreme Court case established that a warrant is required to search a smartphone seized during an arrest?
Riley v. California (2014).
This case held that digital data on smartphones requires heightened privacy protection, balancing law enforcement interests with privacy rights. See 573 U.S. 373 (2014).