Mobile phone extractions using Cellebrite can be the difference between winning and losing a case, but they are also among the most complex forms of evidence any legal team will ever deal with. In Ireland, smartphones are now treated in law as computers or “mini‑computers”, underscoring that a seized handset is effectively a walking personal computer and must be handled with the same seriousness as any other digital system.​

Smartphones as walking computers

Irish courts have explicitly treated smartphones as “computers” or “minicomputers” when interpreting powers to search and compel access to digital devices, recognising that they store vast quantities of highly personal information. This recognition means that when An Garda Síochána seize and examine a phone, they are in effect searching a portable, always‑on computer that can document a person’s movements, communications and behaviour over months or years.​

In parallel, prosecutors and defence teams have acknowledged that smartphones are game‑changers in modern criminal and civil litigation, often tipping the balance where traditional testimony or paper records are inconclusive. Properly handled Cellebrite extractions can confirm or undermine alibis, expose fabrication, or corroborate key events with objective digital traces.​

Volume and complexity of data

A single modern smartphone can generate a report running to tens of thousands of pages once all messages, app data, logs, images and web artefacts are included, and it is common in practice for comprehensive extractions to reach or exceed roughly 30,000 pages of material per device with regular cases having 10 or more devices to examine. This volume is driven by the proliferation of communication channels SMS, WhatsApp, Signal, social media apps, email and in‑app chat all of which may leave separate records that must be cross‑checked and interpreted.​

Because of this, the challenge is no longer just “getting the data off the phone” but filtering, correlating and explaining it in a way that withstands cross‑examination and can be understood by non‑technical decision‑makers. Without a structured approach, critical items can be missed or misinterpreted in the sheer volume of output.​

Encryption and access challenges

End‑to‑end encrypted apps and device‑level encryption mean that lawful access often requires specialist tools such as Cellebrite UFED and Premium, combined with appropriate judicial authorisation and, in some cases, password‑related powers developed through recent Irish case law. Courts have had to define when and how Gardaí may compel passwords or use advanced extraction, balancing investigative necessity with privacy and privilege against self‑incrimination.​

Even when access is obtained, some third‑party apps may store keys or content in ways that limit what can be recovered, so absence of evidence in an extraction is not always evidence of absence. Expert reporting must make these technical limits transparent so that juries and judges do not over‑ or under‑estimate what the Cellebrite images actually show.​

Metadata, timestamps and jurisdictions

Metadata timestamps, location coordinates, device IDs, hashes and application artefacts often provides the most powerful evidence, tying a user, a time and a place together in a way that can corroborate or contradict oral testimony. However, different apps and services may record times in varying time zones, formats or server locations, and daylight‑saving changes or cross‑border travel can shift apparent times in ways that mislead the untrained reader.​

Cross‑jurisdictional matters add further layers of complexity: data may be held on servers in other countries, subject to different legal standards, and some cloud artefacts may be timestamped according to the provider’s default region rather than the location of the handset at the time. Proper analysis therefore requires normalising and explaining those timestamps so that the court can rely on a coherent, defensible narrative of who did what, where and when.​

Timelines and courtroom‑ready presentations

To turn Cellebrite images and raw reports into something that can win a case, the core task is building clear, layered timelines: per‑source timelines (for example, WhatsApp only), cross‑source master timelines, and focused event timelines keyed to the issues in dispute. These timelines should correlate SMS, encrypted apps, call records, location data and media creation times so that the sequence of events is obvious at a glance and any inconsistencies or gaps become immediately visible.​

Because most jurors, judges and legal practitioners are not mobile forensics specialists, the most effective practice is to complement the technical report with simplified slide decks that visualise the timelines, explain key artefacts in plain language, and walk the audience through the evidence step‑by‑step. When done properly, this approach turns a 300,000‑page dataset into a clear story: highlighting the digital footprints that support a client’s position, exposing weaknesses in the opposing narrative, and ensuring that the power—and the limitations—of smartphone evidence are properly understood.

References

1. https://cellebrite.com/en/how-to-properly-handle-digital-evidence-in-phones-seized-for-investigation/
2. https://cellebrite.com/en/the-growing-role-of-mobile-data-in-legal-proceedings/
3. https://www.algoodbody.com/insights-publications/cracking-the-code-high-court-defines-rules-for-obtaining-passwords-to-digital-devices
4. https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/entities/publication/b5d4cd7b-eb69-45fc-acfc-d0990502a6ea
5. https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2023/november/smartphones-game-changer-in-criminal-cases–dpp/
6. https://eclipseforensics.com/cell-phone-forensics-what-your-device-can-reveal-in-court/
7. https://cellebrite.com/en/the-solution-that-changed-modern-digital-investigations-forever/
8. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi460.pdf
9. https://cyfor.co.uk/the-emergence-of-digital-forensics-in-ireland/
10. https://www.albanylawreview.org/article/69923-don-t-text-talk-and-walk-the-emerging-smartphone-defense-in-personal-injury-litigation/attachment/146096.pdf
11. https://www.reddit.com/r/computerforensics/comments/156365y/mobile_device_forensics_typical_output_for_a_lab/
12. https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/supreme-court-garda-entitled-to-return-of-his-phone-following-dpp-decision-not-to-prosecute-him
13. https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/Full%20Colour%20Cover%20Report%20on%20Harmful%20Communications%20and%20Digital%20Safety.pdf
14. https://www.ftitechnology.com/resources/case-studies/forensic-data-collection-from-mobile-devices
15. https://www.garda.ie/en/information-centre/freedom-of-information/decision-log/finance-general/decision_letter_foi_000439_2024___cellbrite.pdf
16. https://ww2.courts.ie/content/use-cameras-and-electronic-devices-court-0
17. https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/supreme-court-search-of-digital-contents-of-computer-unlawful-as-gardai-failed-to-seek-authority-in-search-warrant-application
18. https://www.justanswer.co.uk/ireland-law/kj6w2-summoned-court-using-hand-held-mobile.html
19. https://upturn.org/work/mass-extraction/
20. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2025/11/07/alleged-pornography-on-gardas-phone-can-be-used-in-disciplinary-inquiry-judges-rule/