Like cell phones, a GPS can be a tremendous source of evidence. It can be used to pinpoint the location of suspects as well as the criminal acts themselves (if the device was active and in their possession at the time the crime was committed). It can also be used to show where suspects intended to go. Some GPS units can provide a great deal more evidence, including mobile phone logs, SMS messages, and images. Given these capabilities, along with large storage capacities, examining these devices is well worth the time.
The GPS was originally produced for military use but was eventually shared with everyone. There are twenty-seven GPS satellites in the GPS system. Only twenty-four are in use at a time. The remaining three are held in reserve in case one of the primary satellites goes down. A GPS receiver calculates its position through a mathematical process known as trilateration (
Brian and Harris, 2011).
Not all GPS units are the same. Some are feature-rich, whereas others are pretty basic. We can separate GPS devices into four categories: simple, smart, hybrid, and connected. Simple units are designed to get users from one point to another. Most simple units can store trackpoints, waypoints, and track logs. Other features may be present depending on the make and model (
LeMere, 2011).
Smart units can be broken down into automotive and USB mass storage devices. Such a unit typically has 2 GB of storage at a minimum along with an SD card. They provide the same base functionality as the simple systems. In addition, they can play MP3s, view pictures, and save favorite places.
Hybrid GPS units are feature-rich and can provide a great deal of evidence. Hybrid devices possess the same features as smart devices plus some. Most notably, these devices provide hands-free access to your mobile phones via Bluetooth. This ability to interact with the cell phone can provide a secondary source of much of the data found on the phone. This would include call logs, an address book, and the MAC address of up to ten of the last phones that have connected to the unit. Finally, Short Message Service (SMS) messages can also be recovered (
LeMere, 2011).
A connected unit provides hybrid features and the ability to get real-time information, including Google searches and traffic information. These units have GSM radios along with SIM cards. This functionality is subscription-based, so we may be able to obtain the subscriber information associated with the account.
GPS data can be grouped into two categories: system data and user data. System data will provide us with trackpoints and a track log. Trackpoints are a record of where the unit has been. They are created automatically by the system. Trackpoints can’t be altered by the user. By default, the system determines the interval at which they are recorded. Users can, however, modify this setting, changing the time or distance interval. The track log is a comprehensive list of all trackpoints. This list is intended to help users retrace their path (
LeMere, 2011).
Waypoints are part of the user-created data. When interpreting waypoints, you need to keep in mind what they represent. Unlike a trackpoint, waypoints don’t always indicate the physical locations where the unit has been. They can be places the user intends to visit. The user can enter these locations based on the address or the actual coordinates, or from a list of Points of Interest (POI) supplied by the GPS unit manufacturer.
GPS devices are similar in many respects to cellular phones and are handled in much the same way. They can have volatile memory that may need to be preserved. When powered on, these units are constantly interacting with the satellites. This interaction can cause complications from a forensic perspective, by potentially causing relevant evidence to be overwritten or compromising its integrity.
GPS devices are cropping up in many different places. Taxi cabs, delivery trucks, and more are frequently being outfitted with GPS units. One such example of a GPS unit assisting investigators is the case of Las Vegas dancer Debbie Flores-Narvaez. Her brutal December 2010 murder showed the value of GPS evidence. Police were able to locate her dismembered remains using GPS data from a U-Haul truck. The suspect, Jason “Blu” Griffith, apparently transported her remains in the truck and was unaware that the truck was equipped with GPS. Police obtained the GPS data and used them to retrace Griffith’s movements, leading to her body (
Hartenstein and Sheridan, 2010).
Evidence in the case also included text messages. The victim’s mother, Elise Narvaez, said that her daughter sent her this text message on December 1, 2010: “In case there is ever an emergency with me, contact Blu Griffith in Vegas. My ex-boyfriend. Not my best friend” (
Hartenstein and Sheridan, 2010).
Q&A with Christopher Vance
Christopher Vance is a digital forensic specialist assisting the West Virginia State Police Digital Forensics Unit. In this Q&A, he shares some of his insights from the trenches.
[Q] What do you see as the biggest forensic challenges when dealing with cell phones?
[A] The single biggest challenge when dealing with cell phone forensics is that there are thousands of phones, each with different operating systems. There is such a wide variety when dealing with mobile devices that it is impossible to be well-versed in every single operating structure. It is a constant learning process by trial and error and validation.
[Q] What advice would you give a new examiner wanting to learn more about cell phones?
[A] There are a lot of training opportunities out there, especially for law enforcement. However, even with the best of trainings, it’s absolutely key to get your hands on some devices and try it for yourself.
[Q] How important is continuing education?
[A] In this field, it’s probably the most important thing there is.
[Q] How are you seeing cell phones used in the commission of crimes?
[A] Depending on the type of case, there’s a variety of ways they’re being used. However, the biggest pieces of evidence usually trace back to the SMS/MMS messages, stored images, and call logs. From drug trafficking to solicitation to murder, these always seem to be the biggest keys to the case if the evidence exists on the handset.
[Q] Can you talk a little about the general process you follow when conducting an examination?
[A] The two largest keys are isolation and validation. The first step is always to isolate your device from its network and keep it that way until the case is completed. Then, using a variety of tools and processes (as there is no “super tool” that works on every device), I will collect the data. After the data are collected, I attempt to validate the data by using multiple tools, hash values, or even visual validation while checking the data against what the phone is saying.
[Q] What other mobile devices are you seeing brought to the lab? What kind of evidence are you recovering from those?
[A] The two biggest mobile devices outside of cell phones are iPod Touch devices and tablets. Seeing as these devices can run the same operating systems as their cell phone counterparts, we can usually pull about the same. In most cases, it’s usually chat logs from third-party applications installed on the devices, i.e., Skype, TextNow, Yahoo(, etc.
[Q] From your perspective, what does the future hold for cell phone forensics?
[A] Hopefully the “dumb-phone” will either die or become assimilated. If the major smartphone operating systems can take over the forefront and standardize the market a little, it will make analysts’ and engineers’ jobs much easier. It’s my opinion that one day, we’ll talk about mobile device operating systems the same way we mention the “big three” of Mac, Windows, and Linux.
[Q] Can you talk a little about the tools you use?
[A] I use a lot of tools to get the job done. There’s no one tool that will hit every phone every time and pull all the data. It just does not exist. In our lab, we use the Cellebrite UFED Physical Pro, AccessData’s Mobile Phone Examiner+, Paraben Corporations’s Device Seizure, viaForensic’s viaExtract, LogicCube’s CellDek, Flasher Boxes, and a handful of other niche tools that are used from time to time.
[Q] Do you have a couple of “war stories” you can share?
[A] There have been a couple of cases I’ve worked where mobile device evidence has proven to be the smoking gun. Recently, in a murder investigation, there were multiple messages on a phone from the suspect to the victim, not only informing the victim the suspect was planning on murdering her but even saying when and how the crime would take place. After the crime, the suspect even used the victim’s phone to send out messages to other individuals confessing his guilt.
In a solicitation case, we had a single iPod Touch, where we found evidence of not just one crime in the chat logs, but several victims of the same crime, all by a single individual. I’ve even had cases where the individuals will store their entire child pornography libraries in the memory in their phones.
[Q] Are there misconceptions you would like to shoot down?
[A] Mainly what we refer to as the “CSI Effect.” The job is never as fast or as glamorous as the TV shows make it out to be. In many cases, our job is sometimes as much an art as a science. When dealing with mobile devices, the memory that we have to analyze is so small and dynamic that it is much harder for us to recover deleted data in many cases. However, it’s not impossible.
[Q] How would you compare and contrast the evidence you’re finding on phones to that which is typically found on computers?
[A] The data actually play hand in hand. There have been many cases where we can see a chat log start on a computer and then carry over to a mobile device. A lot of times, we still see the same types of data, mainly communications and user-generated media. It is a lot easier to recover deleted information from a computer than it is from a cell phone, however.
[Q] How big a role has geolocation data played in your investigations?
[A] There are so many issues with geolocation data that they haven’t played a huge role to date. There have been investigations where we have found images with GPS data embedded that assists the investigators. The GPS tracking debates
1 of earlier this year were, by and large, unnecessary. While the GPS data can assist a case, it would take serious validation to make sure that the records you had were exactly what you were looking for. Just because you have geolocation points is not a 100% indicator your individual is in that exact point and location.
[Q] Anything else you would like to add?
[A] Cell phone or mobile forensics is becoming its own specialization within the digital forensics field. I can easily see that this new wave of technology will one day replace our older machines in the same way the “Cloud” threatens to do.