You either will have to come up with a plausible (literally, 'warranted') way to have gotten that data in the real world without relying on the data on the phone as the reason you went looking, or it will likely be thrown out due to it being "Fruit of the poisonous tree".
That's precisely what parallel construction is: a lie told by investigators to the court to sidestep the poison tree, bolstered by real evidence specifically gathered to lie outside of the branches of same.
It's a method that crooked law enforcement uses to deceive courts. It's so common as to have its own name now.
Right, but that implies you can construct an entire chain that doesn't include checking their phone. Just pointing out, per the post i was replying to, it's not simply use the phone, get other evidence, don't worry about the phone's evidence being thrown out.
No, that's not the case here. You don't need a parallel construction in this example, because the UFED extraction (even if tainted by a similar exploit) wasn't illegally obtained.
Sounds like a US/UK-centric view of things. There's many countries where evidence can be used in court regardless of how it was obtained, Swedish and Germany to name two.
If I search a phone with a tainted UFED and get a conversation between Bob (my subject) and Carl (his friend) about the drugs they're selling, that conversation either exists or doesn't exist. Now, let's assume that the court won't accept this evidence, based on a defense argument that it should be inadmissible after seeing the vulnerabilities of UFED, as detailed by Signal.
The next investigative step in to go interview and search Carl, since there is probable cause to believe that a conversation occurred about their drug dealing on his phone. Unless I a) know my UFED is vulnerable and b) have reason to believe the text conversation between Bob and Carl is fake, my warrant for Carl's phone is valid. Now, I search Carl's phone with the same UFED and find the exact same conversation.
At this point, it's still possible for the UFED to have made the conversation up on both sides and for both extractions, and this would probably make the resulting conversation (and potentially everything in the report) inadmissible, but any admissions from Bob or Carl, including based on questions asked about the conversation itself, would still be admissible. I could show the report to Bob and Carl as evidence against them and get a confession, which would be admissible. Additionally, if the court determines that the UFED report is inadmissible based on the potentially for it to be forensically unsound, I would still have the phones themselves. UFED (except in rare circumstances) requires the phone to be unlocked before it can make its extraction. As such, I could manually browse the phone to the conversation in question and take photos of the phone with the real conversations between Bob and Carl. I could also verify through an ISP/messenger app that evidence of those conversations occurred (for example, metadata demonstrating matching times and message sizes that align with the potentially-fabricated message).
The FOTPT defense only applies to illegally obtained evidence. Assuming you obtained a valid warrant or consent to conduct the search, there was nothing illegal about the UFED extraction that would make the FOTPT defense applicable.
~~~
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don’t know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.
~~~
If you believe any of "fruit of the poisonous tree" stuff makes any difference, I've got a bridge to sell you. There is clear evidence that DEA agents are trained to create a "clean" story of evidence around the illicit information they get.
