When a case turns on whether someone was at a specific place at a specific time, a captured device signal places them there with high confidence — timestamped, mapped, and documented.
Many cases hinge on a single factual question: was this person at this location during this window? A claimant who says they couldn't work. A parent who violated a visitation order. A defendant whose alibi can be tested against the record.
We geofence the location and the time window and surface whether the subject's device was broadcasting from inside it — returning timestamped signals and mapped overlays that document presence.
We are equally direct about what presence evidence does not prove, because that honesty is what makes the finding usable in the first place.
Establish a subject's presence — or absence of captured presence — at an incident location.
Test claimed limitations against where a device actually was and what it was doing.
Document order violations with timestamped location records.
Surface a device's presence within a prohibited radius.
Test a claimed location in criminal defense or prosecution support.
Establish who was present at a contested civil event.
Names redacted, methodology preserved.
Geofence resolution at the incident location during the claimed window surfaced the subject's device broadcasting on-site — timestamped and mapped against the claimant's account.
A series of captured signals placed a subject's device repeatedly within a restraining-order radius across multiple dates, establishing a pattern rather than an isolated event.
Confirmed presence requires the device to have been broadcasting at the time. A captured signal places the device at the location with high confidence; the absence of a signal establishes only that no signal was captured at that moment — it does not, on its own, establish the subject's absence. We state this plainly in every report.
Bring us the location and the window. We'll tell you what the signal record shows.