Kevin Horan

Several years ago, I was invited to give a presentation at the Ohio Common Pleas Judges Conference in Columbus, Ohio. As the presentation began, I displayed a screenshot of a typical legal demand a judge might receive for cell phone records. The demand included terms such as “toll records,” “switch data,” “call detail records,” “per call measurement data,” and other technical phrases commonly found in cellular subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants.

Cell phone records have become a routine form of digital evidence in modern investigations and litigation. Historical call detail records (CDRs) and cell-site location information (CSLI) are frequently used to reconstruct timelines, identify communications between individuals, and determine the general geographic area where a mobile device was operating during a communication event.

Under the Rules of Evidence, an expert with “specialized knowledge” may testify. It is a low bar, and it was meant to be, because the rules are designed to favor access and fairness over credential gatekeeping, allowing courts to hear potentially helpful expertise without turning judges into arbiters of professional qualifications. Courts are not licensing bodies. Judges are not tasked with ranking experts or deciding who is the “best” in a field.