Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cellular Forensics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court hears cell‑site mapping showing phone 313‑585‑8719 tracked across Detroit Jan. 9–11
Summary
A Detroit Police sergeant testified that call‑detail records and carrier maps place phone number 313‑585‑8719 in several Detroit locations between Jan. 9–11, including near 9,000 Conner, 13362 Wilshire and the 7 Mile/Greenfield area; the phone number was given to police by the defendant during a recorded interview.
A Detroit Police sergeant testified in 36th District Court that mobile‑carrier records and carrier‑generated maps place the phone number 313‑585‑8719 in multiple areas of Detroit between Jan. 9 and Jan. 11, 2024, including near 9,000 Conner, a Wilshire Drive address and the 7 Mile/Greenfield area.
The witness, Sergeant Melanie O'Rourke of the Detroit Police Department, described maps the prosecutor introduced as exhibits and said the data are “consistent with being in the area of the 9,000 Connor” at about 4:09 p.m. on Jan. 9, 2024. O'Rourke told the court those records are produced by the carrier and show the tower or antenna sectors the device was interacting with at given times rather than a pinpoint GPS coordinate: “this is just to demonstrate the intended area coverage of the cell phone company,” she said.
Prosecutors also showed multi‑row maps the witness said reflected the device traveling later the same day and over the next two nights. O'Rourke testified that a later set of records placed the device in the area of 13362 Wilshire Drive and that the carrier’s subscriber data returned with that Wilshire address for the target number.
Detective Jason Mayes testified that Jarvis Butts gave police the number 313‑585‑8719 during a recorded interview and that he had consent to examine electronic records tied to that number. Mayes told the court: “It's a 313‑585‑8719.” The sergeant explained the technical limits of the evidence, noting the carrier data show intended coverage areas — typically about a mile in the denser Metro Detroit network — and that the mapping demonstrates where the device was “consistent with being” rather than an exact street‑address fix.
O'Rourke described multiple forms of carrier output used in the maps, including call‑detail records (CDR) and timing/RTT reports that record passive, historical interactions between the device and the network. She also explained that records arrive in UTC and are converted to local time in the mapping software the department uses.
The defense has the opportunity to cross‑examine on the technical limits O'Rourke described; she acknowledged factors such as terrain, tower height and network load can affect which tower a phone attaches to and that the carrier‑supplied “intended area coverage” is a modeled beam, not a GPS point.
Why it matters: Prosecutors are using the carrier maps and the phone number the defendant provided to show where the targeted device was located on dates and times relevant to the investigation. The court record also contains testimony tying the target number to an account and to messages that prosecutors say were exchanged on Jan. 9, 2024.
