TRAX excluded from Colorado courtroom!
Mark Pfoff with RMCF testified in a Shreck (Colorado’s version of Daubert) hearing which lead to a court order excluding historical cell site location information and testimony based on TRAX software at Trial. Quotes from this court order include; “TRAX isn’t reliable”, “… the Court doesn’t find [Sy] Ray credible”, “It’s completely unscientific”, “… they’ve been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community”, “The bottom line is that [Sy] Ray isn’t credible”, and “Trax’s methods simply haven’t been accepted as reliable”.
(Colorado v Jones, 22CR196 Sept 2022)
(Unhighlighted version of court order)
According to this court order, the TRAX software is not reliable, its methodology not based in science, and its creator Sy Ray not credible. However, TRAX continues to be used by a few law enforcement agencies and presented to juries in criminal trials as based in science.
Read Sy Ray’s actual testimony
It is inappropriate to state, suggest, or present to a jury any form of estimated coverage area for a cell tower sector. Even when multiple driving tests have been conducted the results are not reliable predicting coverage area (past and future) as tower antenna configurations change daily. Driving tests are only useful in estimating coverage area at the time of the test. The more days that transpire since the test the more unreliable the results. It should be noted, some driving test systems speculate coverage area adding even more uncertainty to their results.
Based on his experience and training; it is Mark’s opinion the TRAX software generates unrealistic and inaccurate coverage area maps which suggests mobile devices are within specific shaded areas. TRAX’s “one shape fits all” methodology for coverage area has been shown not to be accurate or based in science. Want to know more about the issues with TRAX’s coverage area maps?
Publication by Vladan M. Jovanovic Ph.D. & Brian T. Cummings J.D. supporting Mark’s opinions
Quotes from publication
“It is clear by now that a ‘‘one-shape-fits-all’’ solution for depicting a sector’s coverage shape, with or without overlap, has no foundation in the science of RF engineering”
“… it clearly indicates that neither the shape nor the ranges of the ‘‘Trax’’ estimates can be close to reality.”
“This has no foundation whatsoever in the science of RF engineering”
Mark Pfoff supports the statements and conclusions in Dr. Jovanovic and Mr. Cummings’ publication concerning the issues with TRAX’s formula and agrees it is not based in science.
The court order makes it clear; the TRAX application fails Shreck and Daubert. The federal court order US v EVANS is similar as to the reasoning why the software should not be allowed in court proceedings.
Are you working an appeal where the TRAX software was used?
Are you working a case where Law Enforcement is using TRAX or some other application and stating (possible) areas or locations of a mobile device based on CDRs (Call Detail Records)?
Are they using historical location data (RTT, True Call, NELOS, PCMD)?
RMCF can assist in presenting to the court that CDRs and location data are not as accurate in determining a mobile device’s location as some suggest; and some of this data does not pass Daubert standards.