Screen Grab Leads to Misinformation
Contrary to what had earlier been reported, murder suspect Pedro Bravo may not have asked his cell phone to give him a recommendation on where to hide the body. Bravo is charged with killing fellow University of Florida student Christian Aguilar in a dispute of a former girlfriend.
According to previous news reports, Bravo had made the statement “I need to hide my roommate” to Siri, Apple’s “intelligent personal assistant.” A screen grab introduced by prosecutors in court showed that Siri responded with the question, “What kind of place are you looking for.” The screen grab indicated that Siri had suggested swamps, metal foundries, mines, reservoirs and dumps.
However, upon cross-examination by Bravo’s attorney, a Gainesville police officer admitted that the screen grab was just one of many photos found on Bravo’s phone, and that it may not have been a direct question to Siri. Furthermore, WUFT News, which had reporters in the courtroom, issued an online statement refuting the allegation, stating that the Gainesville detective never testified that there was a Siri search, and further noting that the assertion in most accounts that Bravo and Aguilar were roommates was false.
Other data gathered from his phone, though, was used by prosecutors to build the case against him:
- Prosecutors say he used the flashlight on his phone nine times between 11:30 and midnight on the night Aguilar disappeared, allegedly to hide the body in the woods, where it was found in a shallow grave by hunters weeks later.
- Location data gathered from the phone is inconsistent with the account Bravo provided of his whereabouts on the night Aguilar disappeared
Contact Laguna & Rosen, PLLC
At Laguna & Rosen, PLLC, we provide a free initial consultation to every client. To arrange a private meeting with an experienced Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney, contact us online or call our office at 717-233-5292. Let us help you avoid deportation. Se habla Espãnol.

The state of Pennsylvania authorized civil forfeiture in 1988, ostensibly to prevent criminals from amassing substantial physical assets as a result of illegal activity. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in August, 2014, attorneys for a number of Philadelphia residents say the city’s prosecutors have aggressively pursued civil forfeiture, turning it into a highly profitable venture, netting the office millions in revenue every year.
Allen E. Smith, a former police officer in Fort Lauderdale, now leads an elite team of investigators, most of them former law enforcement officers, who use their experience and knowledge to determine whether police have violated the rights of criminal defendants. Since 1997, Smith has worked for the Broward County Public Defender’s Office. He now supervises nine former cops and two other investigators, who focus their work on allegations of abuse or misconduct by police officers or prosecutors. 
In response to a congressional inquiry, mobile phone companies have been forced to disclose just how many times they’ve handed over users’ cellphone data to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. It has been estimated that cellphone companies responded to 1.3 million demands for subscribers’ information last year from law enforcement. Many of the records, such as location data, don’t require search warrants or much court oversight. Both police and cell service providers had long resisted releasing details on the scope of cellphone surveillance.
Like other states, Pennsylvania has implemented mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for a wide range of criminal offenses. When in place, these measures set a floor for the fines or jail time assessed for specific crimes. A judge may not impose a penalty of less than that set forth in the statutes, regardless of age, prior criminal record or other circumstances. Technically, the judge can reject a minimum sentence as unfair, but in practice it rarely, if ever, happens. The only party with any discretion to reduce potential sanctions is the district attorney, who can opt not to ask for adherence to minimum sentencing requirements.
If you have knowledge that you are under active investigation by the law enforcement community then you have certain inalienable rights afforded to you by the constitution, state, and local laws. You have the rights to leave any interview, have a lawyer present, to remain silent, and to have certain privacies.