Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Forensics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DuPage State's Attorney proposes in-house digital forensics unit to speed evidence review
Summary
State's Attorney Bob Berlin told the DuPage County Board June 23 that rising volumes of electronic evidence require an in-house digital forensics unit; he asked the board to support initial startup costs (~$244,500) and adoption of vendor platforms (Cellebrite, Magnet) for cloud-based extraction, analysis and sharing with law enforcement and defense counsel.
State's Attorney Bob Berlin on June 23 proposed creating an in-house digital forensics unit to handle a growing flood of electronic evidence in DuPage County prosecutions.
Berlin told the DuPage County Board that his office received more than 86,000 digital media evidence files from law enforcement in 2025 and estimated that roughly 4,000 of those were very large evidentiary files. He said extracting, storing and analyzing that data has become a bottleneck for charging decisions and discovery obligations and that “the key is the analysis.” The proposal would fund cloud-hosted forensic tools, staff training and a dedicated fiber connection to speed uploads and downloads.
Why it matters: prosecutors are required to disclose exculpatory material in their possession; Berlin said a county-controlled forensic capability would protect the integrity of prosecutions, improve disclosure timeliness, and reduce reliance on external examiners. He recommended two vendors that responded to an RFP—Cellebrite and Magnet—and described software modules for organization, AI-assisted indexing and device unlocking.
What Berlin proposed: an internal unit staffed initially with existing personnel (with possible certification of current staff and the potential need for up to two additional forensic analysts), a web portal for uploads from partner agencies, cloud storage for evidence with case-based retention, and training included in the FY27 budget request. He estimated startup and first-year costs of about $230,770 (including partial-year licensing) and recurring annual subscriptions in the mid-$240,000s thereafter.
Board reaction and questions: members broadly expressed support while raising operational and budget questions. Member Cahill said the unit was a “smart investment for public safety” and emphasized that assistant state’s attorneys need technical help. Member Heather asked how staff would be certified; Berlin said vendors provide training and certification and that training costs are included in the proposal. Several members asked about grants; Berlin said the office has applied previously for DOJ grants (for a separate cold-case unit) but there were no guarantees. Other questions centered on long-term subscription costs, whether county IT would support the system, and whether an in-house solution could someday replace subscription storage; Berlin said county IT staff have been and would continue to be involved.
Vendors and tools: Berlin said the county tested two vendor suites. Cellebrite was described as a platform that organizes and cross-references massive device data; Magnet offers device-extraction tools (including GrayKey for password-protected phones) and specialized features for child exploitation investigations. Berlin said both vendors include AI-assisted tools for indexing and search; he advised caution about AI use and said it would be limited.
Next steps: Berlin said the office has funding to begin the project in the current fiscal year and will present more detail at the county budget presentation on August 4. The board expressed consensus to proceed with further budget-level review and directed staff to include the proposal in upcoming budget materials.
Ending: The board asked for additional budget detail, clarification of recurring subscription costs, and follow-up on potential grant opportunities; Berlin said the office would return with more precise cost and staffing information during budget hearings.
