S1:E3 // Proving who was holding the phone: Drafting warrants that explain the need for user attribution
Knowing what happened on a device is only half the story—proving who was behind the activity is critical.
Knowing what happened on a device is only half the story—proving who was behind the activity is critical.
After the second episode of Legal Unpacked, a question came in that mirrors a frequent issue raised in court: A judge asks, “You obtained data from an application on the device, and from the cloud provider for data for the same account stored remotely. Can you explain to the court why the two sets of data don’t match?” The underlying assumption is that device data and cloud data should align. In reality, they are fundamentally different, and misunderstanding that distinction risks missing potential evidence.
Employee misconduct can pose serious financial, operational, and reputational risks to enterprise organizations. Bullying, sexual harassment, gambling, accessing inappropriate content, and similar misconduct costs U.S. companies up to $300 billion a year according to Work Shield. The 2024 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ “Report to the Nations” estimates occupational fraud alone leads to annual losses of more than $3 trillion globally.
Mobile devices store data in fragmented and often unintuitive ways.
Videos, images, and audio recordings often provide the most persuasive evidence in criminal cases. Their impact, however, depends on authenticity, integrity, and lawful acquisition. Courts demand proof that digital evidence is reliable, verifiable, and properly documented. When evidence is legally obtained, securely preserved, and accurately authenticated, prosecutors not only ensure admissibility, but simultaneously strengthen their overall case.
In this first episode of Legal Unpacked, Magnet Forensics’ resident prosecutorial expert, Justin Fitzsimmons will provide investigators and prosecutors with a practical, structured approach to drafting search warrants for digital evidence.
In digital forensics, the fight against technology can sometimes get in the way of the fight for justice. Whether it’s an encrypted phone sitting in a lab queue awaiting support or a crucial lead buried in gigabytes of data, solving a case can sometimes come down to a single update or surfacing a single artifact. And in some cases, that one artifact doesn’t just whisper its significance—it screams.
Photos, videos, and other media files have become critical to investigations. They establish timelines, corroborate witness statements, and reveal details that would otherwise be overlooked. But media is also one of the easiest forms of evidence to manipulate. Editing tools are widely available and simple to use. Metadata can be easily altered with minimal technical knowledge. Deepfake and AI-generated content continues to evolve, making it harder to distinguish authentic from manipulated media. Attorneys may question whether a file is genuine, and investigators must respond with authoritative answers that can withstand scrutiny.
When I first began trying cases, digital evidence wasn’t even part of the case. It simply didn’t exist in the courtroom. At most, you might see a phone bill or a stray email, but the real drama played out through eyewitnesses, physical evidence, and confessions.
Developed by experienced prosecutors and informed by relevant case law, this guide equips you with the essential knowledge needed to turn digital artifacts into compelling and reliable courtroom evidence.