Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Forensics Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears $35,000 Cellebrite request; delays decision pending memorandum of understanding
Summary
Law enforcement and prosecutors asked Fayette County to cover the majority of a $35,000 Cellebrite subscription used for extracting data from seized phones. Commissioners discussed cost sharing, training and governance, and voted to postpone a decision until March while staff negotiates an MOU and budget placement.
Fayette County officials on Feb. 12 reviewed a request to fund a Cellebrite forensic‑extraction subscription used by local law enforcement and prosecutors and agreed to postpone a funding decision until March while staff negotiates a memorandum of understanding.
A county staff member who detailed recent cases said Cellebrite has been “instrumental” in prosecutions and that the cost for the coming year is $35,000. According to the presentation, 162 phones were processed in calendar 2024; the Fayette County Sheriff’s Department and Oak Hill Police Department accounted for the bulk of usage. Nicholas County Commission had committed $3,000 toward the subscription; presenters asked Fayette County to cover roughly the remainder.
Speakers said Oak Hill provides the trained employee and the equipment used for extractions and that the current arrangement has worked but lacks a written agreement defining priorities and cost sharing. Commissioners expressed interest in a formal MOU and suggested exploring whether the expense belongs in a regular department budget to avoid an annual “passing the hat” approach.
A motion to delay a final decision until March, pending an MOU and further budget work, passed. County staff was asked to coordinate with the sheriff’s office and the task force on how to formalize access, training, and cost sharing before the commission revisits the request.
The commission did not approve county funding at this meeting. Staff said they will attempt to identify additional contributors and examine options, such as cross‑training county personnel or drafting an MOU clarifying priorities for access and timeliness.
