COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NORFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

NO. 2282-CR-00117

)
COMMONWEALTH OF )
MASSACHUSETTS, )
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
) --,
KAREN READ, )
Defendant ) I
.. I

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM TN OPPOSITION TO

COMMONWEAL TH'S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 17 OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE - DIRECTED TO WILLIAM READ AND VERIZON

Now comes the defendant, Karen Read ("Ms. Read") and respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court DENY the Commonwealth's Rule 17(a)(2) Motion for Order Directed to

William Read ("Mr. Read") and Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"). The Commonwealth's motion is

a fishing expedition, and an inappropriate attempt to invade Mr. Read's privacy. All plausibly

relevant information that the Commonwealth could glean from the requested cellular records is

redundant and duplicative of the information already contained in Ms. Read's cellular telephone

and Verizon records, which have been in the Commonwealth's possession since the start of this

case. The Commonwealth has utterly failed to demonstrate that any information contained in Mr.

Read's cellular records-beyond information that is already in the Commonwealth's

possession-is relevant to the instant proceeding. The instant request constitutes a thinly veiled

attempt to embark on a blind inquiry into Mr. Read's personal information and cellular data.

Indeed, to the extent that the Commonwealth seeks records unrelated to Ms. Read, the request is

J
overbroad and an impermissible and invasive violation of Mr. Read's privacy. For these reasons,

the Commonwealth's motion should be DENIED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2024, The Commonwealth filed a Motion pursuant to Rule 17 requesting

records from Verizon for, inter alia, customer data and personal information associated with Mr.

Read's cell phone. Mr. Read is Ms. Read's father. Mr. Read was not present at C.F. McCarthy's,

The Waterfall Bar & Grille, or 34 Fairview Road in Canton, Massachusetts, on the days of

January 28 or 29, 2022. Mr. Read is not a witness to any of the relevant issues involved in this

case and was not called by the Commonwealth to testify in the initial trial of this matter. Based

on the showing set forth in the Commonwealth's papers, it appears that they are seeking

communications between Mr. Read and his daughter between December 30, 2021, and January

30, 2022. However, all of the communications at issue are already in the possession of the

Commonwealth.

Indeed, Trooper Proctor seized Ms. Read's cell phone on the afternoon of January 29,

2022. Ms. Read's phone was subsequently searched by the Massachusetts State Police pursuant

to a search warrant issued on February 2, 2022. 1 Thus, the Commonwealth has, in its possession,

a full extraction of Ms. Read's cell phone. The extraction obtained from Ms. Read's cell phone

includes all calls between Ms. Read and her father on January 29, 2022 (and all calls exchanged

between Ms. Read and her father in the month preceding that date). Moreover, on December 7,

2022, the Massachusetts State Police obtained Ms. Read's personal cell phone records from

Verizon pursuant to a search warrant for the period of 12:00 a.m. EST on January 29, 2022, to

"approximately" 7:00 a.m. EST on January 29, 2022, including the following information:

1The February 2, 2022, Search Warrant for Karen Read's cell phone is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.

2
Subscriber Records, Specialized Location Records, CaU/Text/Daf'a Detail Records, Time on

Tower and/or Sector, Electronically Stored Records, and Carrier Key. 2 There are no

inconsistencies between the data extracted from Ms. Read's cell phone and the data from

Verizon' s carrier-side call and text records. In other words, nothing from Ms. Read's phone was

deleted or altered in any way from the time electronic communications were made to the time the

State Police collected the records. 3

Ms. Read's father, William Read, has never been called by the Commonwealth to testify

as a witness in this case. Now, three years later, the Commonwealth seeks to invade Mr. Read's

privacy by obtaining all of his call and text records for an entire month prior to January 29, 2022.

The Commonwealth seeks the following records from Mr. Read and his cell phone provider:

(1) Subscriber information associated with Mr. Read's phone number;

(2) Records for all Verizon transactions, including all: call records, call detail

records, SMS and MMS text records, and all data use records associated with

Mr. Read's phone number for the period of January 29, 2022 - January 30,

2022;and

(3) Records for all call records and call detail records for the period of December

30, 2021 - January 30, 2022.

In support of this overbroad request, the Commonwealth makes several references to Ms.

Read's cell phone data, which it obtained via the aforementioned search warrants. The

Commonwealth states that in the aftermath of Ms. Read being unable to get in touch with Mr.

O'Keefe in the early hours of January 29, 2022, Ms. Read made several phone calls, including to

2
Search Warrant for Karen Read's Verizon data attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3
This is particularly noteworthy in this instance given the same cannot be said of other
parties present at 34 Fairview on the days of January 28 and 29.

3
William and Janet Read, her parents. The Commonwealth goes on to explain how they plan to

call Mr. Read as a witness in the upcoming trial to question him about "conflicting statements"

made by Ms. Read on January 29, 2022.

At best, the Commonwealth's request is an overbroad fishing expedition. At worst, it is

an attempt to harass Ms. Read's family. In its Rule 17 Motion, the Commonwealth states that

Ms. Read made three phone calls to her mother at 1: 14 a.m., 4:38 a.m., and 4:42 a.m. on January

29, 2022. (See Commonwealth's Rule 17 Motion at p. 2, n. 1). Notably, none of these calls were

answered. Ms. Read did not make any calls to her father, Mr. Read, on January 29, 2022, until

after she discovered Mr. O'Keefe lying incapacitated on Brian Albert's front lawn at 34 Fairview

Road at 6:30 a.m. (Exhibit 3.) The Commonwealth is able to reference all of this information

because they are already in receipt of Ms. Read's phone records confirming the same.

As set forth herein, the Commonwealth has failed to establish good cause for its request to

invade Mr. Read's privacy interests and search his phone for irrelevant information under

Lampron.

ARGUMENT

I. LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND EVIDENTIARY STANDARD

When a party moves the Court to subpoena documents in advance of trial, the burden is

on the moving party to establish good cause for the court to grant the motion. ommonwealth v.

Lampron, 441 Mass. 265,269 (2004), quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700

(1974). Good cause is established by satisfying four criteria:

(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant;

(2) that [the documents] are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of

trial by exercise of due diligence;

(3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and

4
 inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may

tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and

(4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general

"fishing expedition."

Id. The moving party bears the burden to "set forth with particularity some factual basis

indicating how the privileged records were likely to be relevant and material to an issue in the

case ... " Commonwealth v. Bomgeois, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 433,438 (2007). The records sought

by the moving party must have a "rational tendency to prove [or disprove] an issue in the case."

Lampron, 441 Mass. at 269 quoting Comm nwealth v. Faye1weather, 406 Mass. 78 (1989). "The

evidentiary standard ofrelevance applies." Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. 224, 230 (2005)

quoting Lampron, 441 Mass. at 269. The moving party "is required to make a factual showing

that the documents sought are relevant and have evidentiary value ... " See Lampron, 441 Mass.

at 269 (citing United States v. Gikas, 112 F.R.D. 198,201 (D. Mass. 1986)). Rule 17 of the

Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure "is not a discovery tool." Lampron, 441 Mass at 269.

"[R]ule 17 is reserved for evidentiary materials that are likely to be admissible at hearing or at

trial ... and not invoked merely for the exploration of potential evidence ... " Id. (emphasis

added). "Potential relevance and conclusory statements regarding relevance are insufficient." Id.

(emphasis added). The movant's request must be "accompanied by a supporting affidavit

containing a factual showing that the above requirements are met." Commonwealth v. Mitchell,

444 Mass. 786, 791 (2005) (citing Lampron, 441 Mass. at 269). The facts in the affidavit must be

specific and "in the personal knowledge of counsel's sources." Lampron at 270. Mere

"speculation" is insufficient to support this burden. Id. at 462.

The Commonwealth's request for unfettered access to the personal information of a party

5
so peripherally related to this matter, especially in light of the comprehensive lack of evidence of

materiality demonstrated by the Commonwealth, cannot be allowed. The Court must uphold the

interests of fairness and justice by "preventing unnecessary harassment of ... witnesses caused

by burdensome, frivolous, or otherwise improper discove1y requests. A ... witness should be

forced neither to retain counsel nor to appear before a court in order to challenge, on the basis of

a partial view of the case, potentially impermissible examination of her personal effects and the

records of her personal interactions." See Lam, 444 Mass. at 229-30.

II. THE COMMONWEALTH HAS FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS

NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE LAMPRON STANDARD TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS

The Commonwealth's request for Mr. Read's cell records fails to satisfy all four of the

necessary elements required under Commonwealth -v. Lampron. The Lampron requirements are

conjunctive; if the movant fails to satisfy any one of the four requirements, the court must deny

the motion. 441 Mass. at 265.

A. The Requested Records Are Not Evid.entiary And Relevant

The Commonwealth must show that the requested documents are evidentiary and

relevant. They have failed to do that here. The Commonwealth requests all call and text data

from Mr. Read's cell phone on January 29 and January 30, 2022. The Commonwealth claims to

be requesting this information in order to expose "conflicting statements" made by Ms. Read to

her father, Mr. Read, in the early hours of January 29, 2022. However, the Commonwealth is

already in possession of all of the texts and calls between Ms. Read and her father on January 29,

2022. (Exhibit 3.) No such evidence exists.

In support of its request, the Commonwealth references a television interview where Mr.

Read was specifically asked whether Ms. Read believed she may have hit John, to which Mr.

6
Read replied "No, no, no. She felt she struck something." The Commonwealth has misconstrued

(intentionally or otherwise) Mr. Read's statement in that interview in an attempt to insinuate that

this was some sort of admission by Ms. Read to her father. Significantly, in recent coverage of

the case by Boston 25 News, reporter Ted Daniels clarified that Mr. Read went on to state during

that same interview that his daughter remembered backing up and hitting something when she

went out to look for Mr. O'Keefe that morning (i.e. Mr. O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse). 4

It is difficult to understand how information contained in Verizon's call data for Mr.

Read's cell phone, which includes call direction (incoming or outgoing), recipient phone

number, and call duration, but most notably not call content, is useful to this theory of the

Commonwealth, or serves any relevant purpose in this case. The Commonwealth claims that Ms.

Read made this statement to her father at the hospital at approximately 7:30 a.m. on January 29,

2022. The Commonwealth then claims that they require Mr. Read's cellular data to impeach this

statement because they believe such a conversation could not have taken place at the hospital and

must have taken place earlier in the morning, before they arrived at the hospital. This reasoning

does not align with the time period for the records the Commonwealth has requested. The

Commonwealth is already in possession of Ms. Read's cell phone, from the time she acquired

the device, to the date it was seized on January 29, 2022. Even though Ms. Read's phone

contains sufficient information for the Commonwealth to discern if and when a call between Ms.

Read and her father took place, the Commonwealth also has access to Verizon carrier call data

from Ms. Read's phone for all activities from 12:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on January 29, 2022. As is

common knowledge, calls take place between two parties; from one phone to another. For a

4
Boston 25 News, Prosecuio,- in Karen Read case seeks records.from Boston 25 News, retrieved from :
https ://www. boston25news .com/news/local/prosecutor-karen-read-case-seeks-records-boston-25-
news/YIIYSL YL TZCGRA TXEI64ITGUEI/.

7
given call, the exact same information is recorded by the carriers of each participant with the

only difference being the direction of the call. Because the Commonwealth already has access to

information related to any calls between Mr. Read and his daughter (from Ms. Read's cell phone

and carrier), any other information contained in Mr. Read's Verizon cell records is not relevant.

Notably, .Ms. Read did 11ot make anv calls to he:r father, Jl1r. Read, 011 Jamiarv 29. 2022. until

after she discovered Mr. O'Keefe lving incapflcitated on Brian Albert's front lawn at 34

Fairvie~v Road at 6:30 a.m. (See Ex.hjbit 3.) Thus, Mr. Read's cell records from January 29,

2022, do not have a "rational tendency to prove [or disprove] an issue in the case." Lampron, 441

Mass. at 269 quoting Commonwealth v. Fayerw ather, 406 Mass. 78 (1989).

The Commonwealth also requests all call data from Mr. Read's phone for the entire

month preceding January 29, 2022. The Commonwealth claims this information is relevant to

show a lack of pattern of Ms. Read calling her father in the "middle of the night." However, "s

explained above, Ms. Read ditl not call her father ou Ja,mary 29, 2022, until 6:30 a.m.,

moments after Ms. Read discovered her bovfriend of two vears iucapttcitated on Brian Albert's

front lm1111. (Id.) Thus, even setting aside Mr. Read's privacy interest in a month~s worth of call

history, this request is facially irrelevant. Whether Ms. Read typically calls her father in the

"middle of the night" has no bearing in this case because Ms. Read did not call her father in the

middle of the night on January 29, 2022. Thus, this fact has no "rational tendency to prove [or

disprove] an issue in the case." Lampron, 441 Mass. at 269 quoting Commonwealth v.

Fayerweather, 406 Mass. 78 (1989). Moreover, the Commonwealth makes no showing

whatsoever as to the relevance of Mr. Read's calls with other individuals-not Ms. Read-for a

month between December 30, 2021, and January 29, 2022. Thus, the Commonwealth has failed

to show that this incredibly broad request is evidentiary or relevant.

8
 B. The Requested Records Are Othe1·wise Procurable in Advance Of Trial With
Reasonable Due Diligence

Lampron also requires that the Commonwealth show that the requested documents are not

otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence. The

Commonwealth has failed to make that showing here. All of the information requested by the

Commonwealth is already in its possession. In fact, the Commonwealth has been in possession of
'
Ms. Read's entire call history (predating December 30, 2021) for more than two years. The

Commonwealth has access to all information contained within Ms. Read's phone from the time it

was activated through the date it was seized on January 29, 2022. The Commonwealth has never

raised concerns about the authenticity of the information contained in Ms. Read's cell records. In

fact, they relied on these records repeatedly throughout the initial trial in this matter. Had the

Commonwealth exercised reasonable due diligence in advance of filing its Rule 17 Motion, it

would be apparent that the Commonwealth is already in possession of the requested information.

Therefore, because the Commonwealth has already procured the requested infom1ation, its motion

must be denied.

C. The Commonwealth Can Effectively Prepare For Trial Without The Requested
Records And The Failure To Obtain This Information Will Not Unreasonablv J)elay
Trial

The Commonwealth's failure to obtain the requested records will not unreasonably delay

the trial because the Commonwealth is already in possession of the information it seeks from two

different sources (i.e. the Cellebrite analysis conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of

Ms. Read's personal cell phone and Ms. Read's Verizon records from January 29, 2022). Any

records of calls from Mr. Read and/or his cell phone carrier will merely constitute a third copy of

the communications between Mr. Read and his daughter on January 29, 2022. The

Commonwealth does not need to invade Mr. Read's privacy in order to prepare for trial. As such,

9
its request must be denied.

D. The Instant Request Is Not Made in Good Faith and Is An Inappropriate Fishing
Expedition

The Commonwealth's request is not made in good faith, is not narrowly construed, and

appears to be a fishing expedition to sift through Mr. Read's cell phone records for potential

evidence unrelated to his communications with Ms. Read. This Court has repeatedly emphasized

over the course of these proceedings that Rule 17 "is not a discovery tool." Lampron, 441 Mass

at 269. "[R]ule 17 is ... not invoked merely for the exploration of potential evidence .... " Id.

(emphasis added). The duplicative nature of the records sought exposes the Commonwealth's

true intentions. If the Commonwealth had alternative reasons for seeking Mr. Read's cell records

above and beyond any calls or text messages with his daughter, those reasons were not set forth

in the motion's supporting affidavit. There is simply no reasonable justification for the

Commonwealth seeking all of Mr. Read's call records for a month without any limitation

whatsoever as to the recipient of those calls. The court must balance the Commonwealth's right

to receive relevant information with "unwarranted harassment of witnesses and third parties."

Lam, 444 Mass. at 230. As this Court has acknowledged, electronic devices "are repositories of a

'vast store of sensitive information' that can provide 'an intimate window into a person's life"'

Cornm.onwealth v. Feliz, 486 Mass. 510, 516 (2020), quoting arpenter v. United States, 138 S.

Ct. 2206, 2214, 2217 (2018); see also, Rileyv. California, 573 U.S. 373,403 (2014) (cellphones

contain the "privacies of life"). An individual therefore "has a compelling privacy interest in the

contents of his or her electronic devices." Feliz, 486 Mass. at 516. Given that the Commonwealth

has not shown that the information contained within Mr. Read's cell records is relevant in any

way (outside of the information that is already in the Commonwealth's possession), the scale tips

heavily in favor of Mr. Read's privacy interest.

10
 Finally, with respect to the requested time period, the Commonwealth's request is

overbroad. In its request for all call and text records from January 29 and 30, 2022, the

Commonwealth claims that "[t]hese records are limited to the immediate time and aftermath of

the alleged crime and document the relevant interactions between the parties." (See

Commonwealth's Rule 17 Motion at p. 3, n. 5). The Commonwealth's request for Mr. Read's

records from January 30, 2022, is arbitrary. The Commonwealth has failed to allege any

particularized facts in its affidavit suggesting why it believes relevant information will be

obtained from Mr. Read's phone on January 30, 2022. The Commonwealth has not listed with

particularity any facts of import that took place on January 30. See Bourgeois, 68 Mass. App. Ct.

at 438. In fact, the basis for the instant request is that the Commonwealth believes Ms. Read and

her father were communicating before Ms. Read was in the hospital at approximately 7:30 a.m.

(See Commonwealth's Rule 17 Motion at p. 2-3, n. 4). The Commonwealth has presented no

basis whatsoever demonstrating the necessity of obtaining Mr. Read's cell records from January

30, 2022. Thus, this request must similarly be denied.

Finally, the Commonwealth claims to have made an effort to "best protect William

Read's privacy rights," by limiting its request to all of Mr. Read's call data from December 30,

2021, through January 30, 2022. (See Commonwealth's Rule 17 Motion at p. 3-4, n. 5).

However, the Commonwealth's request is not narrowly tailored at all. The instant request

appears to be a blatant attempt to fish for salacious information unknown to the Commonwealth,

impermissibly seek discovery, violate Mr. Read's privacy, and intimidate the Read family by

sending the message that their lives are subject to inspection by the Commonwealth. See

Lampron, 441 Mass at 269.

11
 CONCLUSION

For the above reasons and for those argued by Defense Counsel at the hearing of this

motion, Ms. Read respectfully requests that this Honorable Court DENY the Commonwealth's

motion.

Respectfully Submitted,
For the Defendant,
Karen Read
By her attorneys,

Alan J. Jackson, Esq., Pro Hae Vice

Elizabeth S. Little, Esq., Pro Hae Vice
Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP
888 West Sixth Street, Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
T. (213) 688-0460
F. (213) 624-1942

~ Esq.
BBO #555713
Ian F. Henchy
BBO #707284
44 School St.
Suite 1000A
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 338-6006
[email protected]
[email protected]

Dated: November 12, 2024

12
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Attorney Elizabeth Little, do hereby certify that I served the "Defendant's Memorandum in
Opposition to Commonwealth's Motion Pursuant to Rule 17 of Criminal Procedure-Directed to
William Read and Verizon" upon the Commonwealth by emailing a copy on November 12, 2024
to Norfolk County Special Assistant District Attorney Hank Brennan at
hauk. [email protected].

Date: November 12 2024

Elizabeth S. Little, Esq., Pro Hae Vice

Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP
888 West Sixth Street, Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
T. (213) 688-0460
F. (213) 624-1942

13
EXHIBIT 1
 I ,I \ ,.o

District
",
S toughton
Mict1ael Proctor

Trooper I Norfolk SPDU

'· .
1•i·
.,J ... LI ,. .~ '• -1 t! t

"
., . ,.~ !

>< .. ' .. '·· '

A -; ~ '.!t

~ 1 j - t~·
A ., . .,

See Addendum A.

X I. r :· r .-, ..
Cell Phone App e I-Phone , color rose gold with crack on back

: I • ,r'

• - J>' ,, . j' I.

,I. ..'' 'I ) I•

,, l v • r

X 1 r,•,;, •

Michael Proctor
 ADDENDUM A

A. Data evidencing the ideutity of th e person(s) owning or posse5sing the cell

µlto11e in the boll.l's leading up to and during the Mamlaughter, Negligent Motor
Vehicle Homicide and Leaving the .scene of an accident rest)ltiug in the death
of J-0hn O'Keefe on January 29, 2022 in the area <)f 34 Fairview Dtl ve in tl1e
To\:\IU of Canton, including any data evidencing movement;

13. Dataevjdenci.ng comhrnnications between .lolln O'Keefe and tbe suspect

Karen. Read,.including Katherine Camerano, Je1mifor McCabe and Ken-y
Rob orts, on January 28, 2022 at 9:30PM through January 29, 2022 at
appro>dmately 5:30PM.

C. Da!aevidencing communications in the evening hours of Jant.1ary 28, 2022 at

9:30PM through January 29, 2022 at approximately 5:30PM, involving
destroying and/or concealment of evidence.

D. Data-evidencing the ___location of the cell phone in the evening hours of January
28,2022 at 9:30PM through January 29, 2022 at approximately 5:30PM when
Karen Read's cell phone was seized.

E. Any installed computeJ application software, and any related data files that
will 1:,e necessary to detect and or access and Iead any of the computer files or
applications described above.
 District
Stoughton

:.-~ j}._..... s·C,) c:c,f 3

X :. .
A

. •.

•._ I•

See Addendum A.

X
Cell Phone-Ap?lel-Phone, color rose gold with crack on back .

.j I · •

1
' ..... ... .

l•.~-~r .\ "-'" ;;;,',}?";:!_~· •-: ._;:l·i. ~j, "~r: • " i .'; •

. . . . •:-• .. . . t-. . -=~. ~-.· ... '• •,; j ·~

Stoughton Dlstrict t -~ •

·?A·11·1wi-
• ?' '"~uJA 0\1/\td ¼/}'
:'·t ~·'. .• •' .~-
 1illDENDUM A

A. Data evidencing the -identity of the pcrson(s) owning or possessing the cell
pho11e in the hours leading up to and during the Mans1aughteJ, Negligent Motor
Yeh.icle Hom.icicle and Leevi11~ the scene of an accident re-st1lting in the death
of Jolm O'Keef.e 011 J.anue.ry 29, 2022 in the area of 34 Fairview Drive in the
To~vn of Canton, iucluding any data evidencing movement;

B. Da!aevidcncing communication· betwee.n John O'Keefe and the suspect

Karen Read, including Katherine Camerano, Jennifer McCabe and Ken-y
Roberts. on January 28, 2022 at 9:'.30.PM through Jam1ary 29,202.2 at
approximately 5:10PM.

C. Data evidencing communications in the evening hours of January 28 1 2022 at

9:30PM through Januat)' 29, 2022 at approximately 5:30PM, involving
dest1·oying and/or concealment of evidence.

D. Data evidencing the ___location of the cell phone in the evening hours of January
28, 2022 at 9:30PM through January 29, 2022 at approximately 5:30PM when
Karen Read 1s cell phone was seized.

E. Any installed computer application software, and any related data files that
will be necessary to detect and or access and read any of the computer files or
applications described above.
EXHIBIT 2
 1 RIAi. COUfH Of MI\SSJ\CHUSETTS

Superior COtJIH pi;pp,nrM!r-t"<'f

Norfolk County invhiMi

lOli~~.11!:R!f,·~ "l•OU ll '

Pl.ll.h.r: c.lHI t A i, /\t, Cl

)(

}\

•,o r.r 1!1tAfOH F () 1,1 .. 1[1)

See Addend um A.

X
Verizon VSAT, 180 Washington Valley Road Bedminster. NJ 07921. Order and Warrants: 888-667 ~0026.
[email protected]

VIN:~ICCID-
!MEI- 843, Verizon Number Assigned lo IMEI· -

Norfolk County

WITMES:S:
 ADDENDUM A

Verizon located at 180 Washington Valley Road, Bedminster, NJ, 07921 provide the following
records pertaining to:
• VIN:
• Integrated Circuit Card Identification Number (ICCID) -
• International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI)-
• Verizon Phone number associated with the (MEI-
• International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) Number assigned to the VIN
uumber listed above.
For the time period of January 29, 2022 at 12:00 am EST (5:00am UTC) through January
29, 2022 at approxirnate]y 7~00am EST (12:00pm UTC):

.. Subscriber Records: All information for the account associated to the above referenced
IMEI/IMSIIVIN including all Subscriber information to include name, tax identification number
(social security number or employer identification number); physical address, mailing addresses,
residential addresses) btisiness addresses, e-mail addresses and any other address infonnation;
credit information obtained or used by the company to grant account status; all numbers
associated with account: billing records; all payments to include method, date and time of
payments, and ___location (store name, address, and phone number of ___location where payment(s)
were made); all authori2ed users on the associated account; activation date and tetmination date
of each device associated with the account and above listed number(s); types of service
subscdbet utilized (e.g. A-list, Verizon Messages, friends and family); make, model, serial
number, IMEf, ESN. tvfElD, and MAC address associated with the above listed
IMEf/IMSl/VIN/ICCID including any and all equipment or sim card changes for the life of the
account; all customer service and account notes; any and all number and/or accowit number
changes prior to and after the account.was activated; any other records ~d other ;viden~e
relating to account associated to the above referenced IMEf/lMSI/vehicle identification number.

• Specialized Location Records: All call, voice, text (SMS & MMS), and data connection
___location infonnation and transactions (registration of network events) related to all specialized
carrier records that may be referred to as NELOS (Network Event Location System) or Location
l
 Database of Record ("LocDbol"'); RTT (Round Trip Time/Return Trip Time/Real Time Tool);
PCMD (Per Call Measurement Data); TD0A (Time Difference of Arriva1) or Timing Advance
Information; Mediation Records; E9-l-1, and/or Historical OPS/Mobile Locate Information
which shows OPS ___location (longitude and 1atitude) and cell-site and sector of the device in
relationship to the new.1ork when connected to the network for the above referenced account.

• Call!fext/Data Detail Records: All records associated with the account associated to
the above referenced IMEI/1MSININ/ICCID to include all numbers that communicate with this
listed number relating to all delivered and undelivered inbound and outbound calls, text
messages, and text message content to any of the above listed numbers, all voice mail, and all
data connections, and to include cell-site and sector, date, time, direction, duration, number
called or text to and/or received from, and bytes up/down, infonnation related to each call, text
or data connection1 all text message content, and voicemails, as well as Call to
Destination/Dialed Digits search for all numbers listed above. Please preserve all cell-site and
sector infonnation related to each call, text or data connections.

• Time on Tower and/OJ: Sccto.r: Also provide all cell-site and sector information related
to each number called to and/or Ieceived from, and data connections, specific to the "Time on
Tower11 and/or Sector, to include infom1ation with the start and end date and time for each time
the connection was involved in a "hand-off" to another cell-site and/or sector, to include the
elapsed time (in seconds) for each "hand-off", that was used during and throughoul each voice
call (whether completed or not), and/or which was used during and throughout each data session.

• Electronically Stoi-ed Records: All records associated with the accotmt associated to
the above referenced IMEI/IMSININ/fCCID, to include all stored communication or files ,
•ncl uding-voic mai: , ext,11 eS'sa&--e , lficluom1rnrrm15ers ex't to-anc1rece 1ve
content, e-mail, digital images (e.g. pictures), contact lists, video caUing, web activity (name of
-webme- 01·-a:ppltcalion vistteci'ofaccesseaJ,-domaTii ·accessea-; aata connections (to-iricfiide
Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Internet protocol (IP) addresses, (IP) Session data, (IP)
Destination Data1 bookmarks, data sessions, name of web sites and/or applications accessed),
date and time when all web sites, applications, and/or third party applications were accessed and
2
the duration of each web site, application, and/or third party application was accessed, and any
other files including all cell site and sector illfonnation associated with each connection and/or
record associated with the account associated to the above referenced IMEI/IMSININ.

" Carriex Key: related to call detail, text messages, data connections, IP logs, IP Sessions,
web site and/or applica1ion connections; and cell site information. The "carrier key'' is a legend
related to the types ofresponsive data received from the service provider, which contain the
record column header labels and their definitions of what each cell value represents in the
spreadsheet. Carrier keys are required to decipher what the values represent in these cells, as
many of these values may be presented in codes only known to the service provider.

- - ------- -- ----- - -

--------------

3
 APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT TRIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
G,L. c. 276 §§ 1~7
Superior COURT DEPAIUMENT

NAVJE OF A?PllGAHT Norfolk County DIVl.SlON

Mlchael Proctor
SEARCH WARRANT DOCKET NUMBER
PosinoN OF APPUGANT Trooper I Norfolk SPDU
~2--<t.2.S' ~ 0001
l. the undersigned APPLICANT, being duly sworn, depose and say that
1. I have the following inrorma!ion based upon the a11aohed alfidavit(s}, consisting or a total of ~ Pages,
Whlch is (are) incorporated herein by reference.

2. Based upon this information, there ls PRO,BABLE CAUSE to believe that the property described below;
0 Has been stolen, embezzred, or obtained by false pretenses.
~ Is intended for use or has been used as lhe means of committhg acrime.
~ Has been concealed to prevent a crime from being discovered.
0 rs unlawfully possessed or concealed for an l1nfawful purpose,
~ Is evidence of acrime or rs evidence Mcrimfnal actMty.
0 Otller(speclfy) - -- -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - ·
3. I am seeking the issuance of a warrant lo search for the following propert'j ( deSCllbe the propertf' lo be searc/-ied for as parllcular as possiiie ):
See Addendum A.

Based upon this informaUon, there ts arso probable cause to believe lhat the property may be found ( check as many as apply):
00 At ( identify the exact ___location or description of the pf.ace(s) to be searched):
Verizon VSAT, 180 Wa$hington Valley Road Bedminster, NJ 07921. Order and Warrants: 888-667-0026,
[email protected]
------'--- ------- ------------~
Which is occupied by and/or in the posse$$ion of:
!MEI - Verizon Number A.ssigned to IMEl-
0 On the person or in 1ha possession of ( identi~v any specific person(s) t.o be soarc/led):

Cl On any person present who may be found to have such pro~rtv in his or her possession or tinder his or her control or to whom such
Property may ha1•e been defivered.
- Tl::!ER EF-ORE,+ rri~edf•.11ly-mtiuesi UltiHl'l'J-C01;111 lss>Je-11 Warrant a:id order of-seizure;-authorlzlng 1\TSean:TiOTllieaoov~ descnbed place{s) ~no --
?erson(s), if any, 10 be searched, and directing 111at such property or evidence er any part thereof, If found, be seized and brought before the court.
rther relief ~af ~e ~o_~~ may 9~~!11 rr~p~r..:
Together \l.ith su~h other and fu_
l O have previoLIsly submitted !he ~ame application.
t Ix} have not previously submitted the e application.

PRIHTED NAME OF APPLICANT

Michael Proctor

l_. _x__ ~ - - - ~ -Signalure ~I Ju=ico,~<-Magislroto or A~sistanl C!c<k

I I

EXHIBIT 3
 Cellebrite
w1w1 ...Ell<!hr1lc.com
Extraction Report -Apple iOS Full Frie system

Call log (8)

[ ~ l l"aiUes TlrnesJ.;tti,> Ourat1~11 S~llls l Country

Qlde
I AddilRi{lal Info Video
ca!!
I ~ lll(o
•
I
I Dell!led
~

.
~·-1,,cc·_·_ _ ,_.. L....,:=~-~~- i;.w.,_.i. ~ 11•, - 1"uf1 -~ 1 = 1 : : : i : - -i;ii:ia ,11,

1/16/2022 "'
•="-=
1 0():03:1/ U11known us Ne~rkName: Sou.-ce:
!t): 447:'14 PM(UTC-
5)
Uri , ·,n n~two11>
lnit.ed States)•
Cjide.owl.
Source flle: 00008020-
OOOtl:?.4 F•I0f23!102E tiic
sjull zfp/rcrivate/var/mobl
Pirec!Joo:
Outgoing Dl!ieonnecbon le/Library Ca!IJ.i..storyOB!
Reason: Callffis(l)~· stor,f!fJ~ta-waJ
.. OxEC1 ~ (Tabw.
ZCALlRECORO, Size:
1009432 bytes)
·· - -
2 To: 1/29/2022 00:00:01 Unknown us Network Name: Source:
6 3048 AM(U l C- Unknovm n1>t1•1,;111 Source frie: 00008020-
838- 5) (Uniied States)' 000624E40El.3002E me
Dirot:Uon.
Video call: s full ziplhrivaij!/va!lrnobl
Otltgoi!l{I Dlsoonnection le/Libraiy CallJ-tistoryOBJ
Reason: Cal!Hislol.stono,rhita :
Ox305F~ foblfi
lCALLRCCORu, Size:
.._ __ ,_,,,,.,, 253952 by1es) I
3 To:
Li
1/29/2022
6:32:I5AM(U'fC-
5)
OOD3:51 Unknown LJS N2t,,vork N =:
Unknown netY101k
(Unite1I Sl.al~)•
Source:
Source 111e: 00008020.
00062~ E40E23002E file
I
)"'\; .. __ ,.,;&.;_.,..,
Uu1..~1.1Ull,

Outgoing
Vi~call:
Dl=nection
R=
s full.zlp,'hriva!e.lvartmribi
!elUl;lrary Cal!Hi!.toryOBf
CallHistoMsloreclata .
I
Ox30 ,<1 Table:-
-ZCAl_t;E ,ORO, S-ize
253952 byles}
~ •• , 4 ··-·
0():00:0() Not us -·
I-
1f29i2022 Nelw'ork Name: Source:
6:40:38 AM(U fC- ans,Ne1ed Unlmrn•,n nelwork Source file: 0000802.0.
5} [Unlle,I Slates)' D00624E40E230Q2F file
'
Diretti0£1:
V;deo call: s fulLziptprjvafl!/Vilr/mot,I
Outgoing Diaconnectioo lelUbraryiCallHislor-JDB/

..
Reason: Cal!History..storecL!Jta .
Ox3O27F Tab!>,:
Zf,AU RECORD, Sti:fi·

5
·- • - - - - - · - -1i2912022
-···-
644:1 / AM(U rC-
-· 00:00:11 Unknown us Nelworlc N:ime .
Unkno,·m networlt
253952 bytes)
Source:
Source file: 00008D20-
5) (United States)' 000624 E-IOE23002E file
DirecUon;
Vr<lcD call· s fullzipl~rivaw./varlmobi
Oulgoing Di s.oonnedlon lelLll:irar/ 1.,a!IHislolyDB/
R=n: Callffis.tor1.storedara
Ox3O I EA gable:
lCALI.RE OR[J, Size
253951 bytes)
6 To:
-- 1i29i2022. 00:04:05 Ur1known us Network Name:
- ·-
Source:
·· - """' - ,....

Ill
LJ<)(I
s 6:44 55 AM(UTC-
5)
Unknown network.
lni!ed Stales)'
Scl.lrce me: ooooeo20.
DOOD24E40E23tl02E me
~ ideQcall s full ziP:f<ITV:t!efvar/mobt
Dlrecl\on:
Outgoing
Oi!!COllOcclion lelLibrary C",allH all'.lry □BI
Reason: Ca!H 1,story.sIore<lala-wal
OxDDJl•ID (Tobie:
ZCP.LLRECORD, Size:

7 To.
-·-
1129/2022 Oll:01::35 Unknown
" ""'
L!S
- '"" " ~
-
Nelwtirlc Na.me
- -- t009-i32 byjes)
Soutce·
64922 AM(UTC- Unknown m,twork Source file: 00008020-
jJJ 5) (U111lc•d States)' 000624 E40E23002.E '1le
Video call: s full .zipif<ri11a!e/var/mob1
Direction:
Outyoi11(1
Olscooneciic.n Je/ubr.uy CallH,s!>;.'lyDB/
Reason: CallHisto:K sttiredata-w:;l
: lhdJD3B (Table:
lGALtRECORn, Si?:e·
10C'94:l2 bfii!!,)
I
-- ...
-1r "'· - - -
To: li28i2022 -66:ol:'26 Unknown us Network Name: Source:
7.: 11:36 AM(UTC- Unknown ne~Nolk Source file: 00008020-
Ua!U 5) (Unit2d States)' 000624E40E23U02E rne
Direction:
Vidoo call. s rull .zipJ~ri~alclvarlrnobi
Outgoing Olsconnec\lon leli.ibr,uy ~IIH.sloryOBI
Reason: CallHi5ilO').' .Slu!~dla-wal
0J<DO 15:s(Tab:e·
ZCALLRECORD, Size
1008432. bytes) •
~
- ---- -·- - ~ - -- -- _ __;_L_.__
 ••··• Cellebrite
•••
v, •,·w.cel.l£:bri~.(orn
Extraction Report - Apple iOS Full File system

Participants

Karen Read• (owner)

Dad~

Conversation - Instant Messages (i)