(RSBM) Thanks so much for this.
I hear my local emergency dispatch state they've pinged a cell phone around here pretty frequently, for instance when they've received a hangup call and get no answer on callback. Then they'll tell the officer taking the call that the coordinates are "within a confidence of 18-30" (for example, not real numbers) and give them the address(es) closest to that location within that range. So I wonder if you even have to have a warrant, in certain situations?
Sorry! It took forever for me to figure out how to see who had replied to me so I could respond in kind.
To my knowledge, 911 services are the exception. The reasoning behind the FCC mandate (that required all non-compatible E911 phones be deactivated) was to extend the safety capabilities that wireless phones afford consumers (especially back then but even to this day in rural/hilly/mountainous areas.)
The change in distance honestly delights me. Although, I can't say that I am not surprised as tech has advanced SO MUCH in the past two decades. I would anticipate that in the rural/hilly/mountainous areas that it is likely still a bit further. The same goes for areas with a thick tree canopy. To date, neither wireless phones nor civillian grade hand-held GPS systems can beat Mother Nature. (For that matter, even military grade tech can't always beat terrain, weather and the like.)
And still, all of this re enforces that LE was not doing their job in trying to find Marshell.
As per the hard reset that JBG had suggested was done on Marshell's phone (I'm combining this tech stuff to make it easier):
- it was mentioned in an earlier comment on this thread that she had made the assumption that the phone had a factory reset done as it had been wiped of it's apps
- it has been mentioned on more than one occasion in this thread that the location of the phone as of *today* is unknown
- it has been mentioned on more that one occasion in this thread that the search party was directed to look in areas that Marshell's phone or watch (I'm hazarding a super easy guess that they are referring to a smartwatch/fit bit type of tech)
Therefore we can surmise fairly substantially that the phone was assumed to be with Marshell or disposed of by her but NOT anywhere accessible to anyone.
Why this is important:
According to multiple sources that I have that still work in the wireless phone field and external techs all of whom work or are vastly knowledgeable of AT&T specifically (although these rules in my research towards the end of last week indicates that in regards to this topic, what holds true for AT&T holds true for all wireless phone companies), WPCs can not see if a phone has been manually reset nor can they see if apps have been removed.
(The former could be seen in the account notes if an account holder has called in a requested a remote wipe by the carrier but doing so on a missing persons phone would make absolutely zero sense.) In continuance, I was informed that Apple could provide that information but it would take time and the furnishing of proper password(s) etc by an applicable party.
I don't know when MSM first reported that Marshell's phone was (thought to be wiped) but I am confident in saying that the timeline is concerning.
What I'm hoping for is either clarification on when/where this information came about OR that that knowledge is being specifically withheld.
I know I have seen mentioned in this thread something about BW had contacted AT&T but I've now been typing so long I can't remember the exact details. *headdesk*
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
