Case Study: Establishing Recklessness Through Digital Forensics in a Florida Vehicular Homicide Case

by | Apr 18, 2025 | Accident, Cell Phone, Crash, Distracted Driving, Forensics, Mobile Device, Phone, Private Investigations, Smart Phone, Traffic | 0 comments

Case Timeline

  • September 15, 2016 – Crash occurs on I-75 in Hernando County, Florida.
  • February 27, 2018 – Gregory Andriotis arrested in Volusia County on a Hernando County warrant, charged with one count of vehicular homicide and three counts of reckless driving causing serious bodily injury.
  • July 18, 2018 – SJDC retained by private attorney in a wrongful death civil case.
  • November 2019 – SJDC retained by the State Attorney’s Office to assist in the criminal investigation.
  • April 2023 – Trial concludes with conviction of Andriotis.
  • June 15, 2023 – Gregory Andriotis sentenced to 30 years in prison.
  • January 3, 2025 – Convictions affirmed by the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.

Background

The crash tragically impacted a Florida family. A nine-year-old boy was killed instantly, and other members of his family sustained serious injuries. Their vehicle was stopped in traffic on Interstate 75, a busy North-South corridor in Florida, when it was violently rear-ended, leading to a multi-vehicle chain reaction.

SJDC’s involvement in the case began in 2018 in a related matter (protected due to confidentiality agreement), but was subsequently brought into the criminal case by the State Attorney’s Office in 2019. The crash resulted in the death of a child and serious injuries to three other passengers. Although the facts of the crash were clear — no braking or evasive action by the driver despite clear visibility and sufficient time to react — the legal challenge lay in proving recklessness.

Legal Complexity

The charge in this case was vehicular homicide — not distracted driving. However, digital distraction played a critical evidentiary role in proving that the driver acted with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. Under Florida law, proving recklessness requires more than showing negligence or inattention; it requires demonstrating conscious disregard of known dangers.

At the time, to our knowledge, no Florida court had affirmed a conviction where mobile device distraction was the basis for a vehicular homicide charge. This case would go on to set a legal milestone.

Forensic Hurdles

One of the primary limitations in the investigation was a court-imposed motion in limine that restricted admissible mobile evidence to activity occurring after 3:28 p.m. on the day of the crash. The crash itself occurred between 3:34 and 3:37 p.m., meaning that much of the digital behavior that could show a pattern of distraction was excluded before the examination even started.

The full artifact picture included several key indicators of device use. These artifacts — though only some were ultimately admissible at trial — revealed sustained, purposeful interaction with the device. While the data admitted into evidence largely revolved around the installation and interaction with Microsoft Excel, the broader pattern of use also included:

  • Active voice calls
  • Viewing and attempting to open a multi-tabbed budget spreadsheet
  • Downloading and installing Microsoft Excel
  • Accessing financial accounts
  • Credit card payment transactions

To validate what was visible in the data, extensive testing was conducted on comparable devices to establish how the Excel installation process unfolded and what user interaction was required.

Why Device Attribution Matters

As a forensic expert, maintaining neutrality is essential — both in reporting and testimony. Terms like “the device user” are intentionally used instead of directly attributing actions to a specific individual. In this case, however, the mobile device contained multiple indicators tying it to Mr. Andriotis — including email addresses, owned documents, and communication with known contacts — leaving little doubt about who was using the device at the time.

Today’s Capabilities

Since 2016, both forensic tools and mobile operating systems have advanced considerably. Today, we can extract:

  • Foreground application timelines
  • Screen activation and orientation
  • Screen interaction logs
  • App switch behavior

Legal teams are also better equipped to understand and argue for broader data windows — something that would have significantly benefited this case if allowed.

Lessons for Legal Professionals

There are several key takeaways for attorneys, investigators, and digital forensic professionals:

  1. Preserve early — don’t wait until devices are lost, overwritten, or factory reset.
  2. Think holistically — isolated events rarely meet the legal threshold for recklessness.
  3. Don’t rely on custodians — users often misunderstand preservation (e.g., they assume simply not getting rid of the phone is enough — but they keep using it).
  4. Expect and prepare for spoliation claims — adverse inference rulings are now common.
  5. Involve an expert early — not only for technical accuracy but also to educate the court and guide scope.

These cases often lead to disastrous outcomes, including multi-million dollar verdicts. Since January 2025 (as of May 2025), SJDC has been involved in five such cases involving spoliation claims.

Related News & Legal Coverage

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how digital forensics can bridge the evidentiary gap in distracted driving incidents — especially when the law requires proof of a reckless state of mind. It also serves as a cautionary tale for how missed evidence, delayed preservation, or improper scope limits can handicap even the most serious prosecutions.

Preserve early. Think broadly. Involve experts up front.

Call Now Button