[Exclusion of information from my phone, which was illegally searched]; Court file 244069-10-BC [Patrick Fox; Tara Laker (BCPS)]

Dear Miss Laker:

I have tried to call you to follow-up regarding your position on the admissibility of the information purportedly from my phone, but I have been unable to get through. Enquiry BC transfers me but then I get a recording saying the number is not recognized.

Nevertheless, in the event you will be opposing the exclusion of all information from my phone and all testimony related to that (i.e. most of Shook's testimony), then I believe it is prudent to have someone from VPD, whoever performed the extraction, testify about why the "date modified" timestamp on the 'accunts_ce.db' file is 2022-08-18. The identity of the party who performed the extraction is not mentioned in the disclosure, but I suspect it was Nancy Yingling. And, you may recall I had asked Shook about this timestamp issue when I cross-examined him but he said he wasn't involved in the extraction so he would have not knowledge of this.

On the other hand, if you will not be opposing the exclusion of the information from the phone then the "date modified" timestamp of 'accounts_ce.db' will not be relevant for the purposes of the trial. That being the case, the testimony of the person who performed the extraction would not be necessary.