DERIK BROWN TRAC PHONE

Enhanced Call Detail Records — Derik Adam Brown / 423-827-7511

Document Type: Enhanced Cellular Call-Detail / Usage Records
Evidence Type: Digital Evidence / Telephone Records
MDN / Phone Number: 423-827-7511
ESN: 353566115608229
Subscriber Attribution: Derik Adam Brown — attribution comes from separate defense-reviewed case materials; the call-detail sheet itself displays the number but not Brown’s name
Call-Record Period: May 1, 2020 through July 7, 2020
Report/Export Label: Enhanced Call Detail — July 27, 2020
Related Investigation: Randall Leslie homicide investigation / State v. Holland

Summary

This record contains enhanced cellular call-detail data for telephone number 423-827-7511, covering a requested period beginning May 1, 2020 and ending July 7, 2020. The record identifies device ESN 353566115608229 and provides individual telecommunications entries including dialed number, date and time, incoming/outgoing direction, Origin SID, destination state or city when available, voice usage, SMS activity, MMS activity, and cellular data usage.

Separate case materials previously prepared from the discovery identify 423-827-7511 as Derik Adam Brown’s telephone number. That attribution is important, but it should be kept analytically separate from the face of this particular call-detail sheet because the sheet itself does not visibly state the subscriber’s name.

The records contain extensive activity surrounding May 27, 2020, the date central to the Randall Leslie investigation.

Among the explicitly readable May 27 entries are repeated communications involving 423-762-9254. The records show numerous incoming SMS entries involving that number during the early afternoon, including repeated activity between approximately 1:40 PM and 1:47 PM, as well as earlier incoming messages shortly after midnight.

The May 27 records also show contacts involving other numbers, including:

• 423-285-9469, including an incoming four-minute call at approximately 2:55 PM;

• 423-790-6340, including an outgoing SMS entry at approximately 3:08 PM;

• 423-567-0968, including an outgoing SMS entry at approximately 3:08 PM;

• and 931-254-1818, with outgoing SMS activity at approximately 3:20 PM.

The sheet also documents continuing activity on May 28, 2020. One clearly readable entry shows an incoming call from 423-285-9469 at approximately 8:27 AM, recorded as six minutes and associated in the carrier record with Monteagle, Tennessee. Other May 28 entries reflect cellular/data activity earlier that morning.

A substantial portion of the spreadsheet’s date/time column renders as “###############.” That appears to be spreadsheet display overflow rather than proof that the underlying carrier timestamps are absent. Accordingly, exact timestamps that appear obscured in this rendered version should be verified against the original native spreadsheet before they are quoted in a filing.

What This Document Establishes

This record directly establishes that:

• enhanced telecommunications records exist for MDN 423-827-7511;

• the associated device ESN is 353566115608229;

• the requested record period runs from May 1 through July 7, 2020;

• the records contain both incoming and outgoing communications;

• they include voice calls, SMS records, MMS indicators, and cellular-data usage;

• they contain substantial activity during the critical May 27–28, 2020 period;

• 423-762-9254 appears repeatedly in the call-detail records;

• other recurring numbers include 423-285-9469, 423-790-6340, 423-567-0968, and others;

• and the records contain network identifiers such as Origin SID that can be correlated with additional carrier/tower information.

Separate defense-reviewed case materials identify the phone as Derik Brown’s 423-827-7511 number and report forty-six contacts between Brown’s number and 423-762-9254. Those derived materials also identify three contacts at approximately 6:51 PM on May 27, but that exact timing should ultimately be checked against the native carrier spreadsheet because some timestamps are obscured in the rendered copy.

Why This Document Matters

This is potentially one of the more important digital-evidence datasets in the case because it provides a contemporaneous electronic activity record for Derik Brown’s phone during the period surrounding Randall Leslie’s disappearance.

Brown is independently documented in the early police records as being found with Randall Leslie’s vehicle in Coffee County on May 28. The phone records therefore provide a separate means of reconstructing Brown’s communications and movements immediately before that arrest.

The repeated contacts with 423-762-9254 deserve particular attention.

Separate defense-reviewed materials identify that number as being associated with CPD Officer Amy Hickey, but that attribution should be independently verified against an authoritative subscriber, agency, employment, or subpoena record before the public site states it as an established carrier fact. The call-detail record proves the contacts between the numbers; identifying the person controlling the other number is a separate evidentiary step.

If the Hickey attribution is independently established, then the timing and frequency of Brown’s contacts with that number become directly relevant to reconstructing:

• Brown’s law-enforcement contacts;

• what law enforcement knew about Brown and when;

• Brown’s activities on May 27;

• his subsequent arrest with Leslie’s vehicle;

• his later interviews;

• and any undisclosed relationship, cooperation, or communication history.

The records are also important for location analysis, but the columns must be interpreted carefully.

A carrier field such as “Called City” does not by itself establish the physical location of Brown’s handset. Likewise, an Origin SID is a network identifier and should not automatically be presented as a precise geographic location.

Any claim concerning Brown’s physical location should be based on the accompanying cell-site/tower records, sector information, engineering data, or carrier mapping, not merely the called-number city shown in this call-detail table.

This dataset should therefore be compared directly with:

• Brown’s May 28 Coffee County arrest;

• Coffee County reports and property records;

• Brown’s three seized cell phones;

• CPD’s subsequent receipt and custody of those phones;

• Brown’s June 10 and later interviews;

• cell-site/tower records for 423-827-7511;

• search-warrant affidavits;

• Brown’s trial testimony;

• and any records identifying the subscribers or users of the numbers repeatedly communicating with Brown.

The most important use of this document is not simply showing that Brown made telephone calls. It provides a timestamped communications framework that can be laid directly over the May 27–28 investigative timeline and compared against Brown’s statements and law-enforcement records.

Catalog Category

Digital Evidence / Cell Phones → Carrier Records → Enhanced Call Detail Records → Derik Adam Brown / 423-827-7511

Subscriber Information Record — ESN 353566115608229

Document Type: Cellular Subscriber Information / Device Identification Record
Evidence Type: Digital Evidence / Telephone Records
ESN: 353566115608229
Related Phone Records: Enhanced Call Detail for MDN 423-827-7511
Dropbox Folder Context: Derik Brown TracFone / Brown, Derek Phone Records
Related Investigation: Randall Leslie homicide investigation
Document Length: 1 page

Summary

This one-page document is labeled “Subscriber Information: 353.566.115.608.229.”

The number 353566115608229 is the same ESN/device identifier appearing throughout the enhanced call-detail records for telephone number 423-827-7511.

The document is stored in the case materials under folders specifically identifying it with Derik Brown’s TracFone / Derik Brown phone records.

However, the readable content of this particular PDF contains only the heading identifying the ESN. The extracted document text does not display a subscriber name, address, activation information, telephone number, account number, or other subscriber details.

Accordingly, the document should be preserved as a separate subscriber-information record, but it should not be represented as independently proving Brown was the registered subscriber unless a clearer original version or another carrier document supplies that information.

What This Document Establishes

This document directly establishes that:

• a separate subscriber-information record existed for ESN 353566115608229;

• investigators or the carrier treated that ESN as the subject of a subscriber-information inquiry;

• the ESN is identical to the device identifier appearing in the enhanced call-detail dataset associated with MDN 423-827-7511;

• and the document was preserved within the case-file collection containing Derik Brown’s phone records.

The presently readable document does not independently establish:

• the subscriber’s name;

• the subscriber’s address;

• the account holder;

• the activation date;

• the telephone number assigned to the device;

• or who physically possessed or used the device during the relevant period.

Why This Document Matters

This document is important because it provides a direct device-level link to the enhanced call-detail records.

The enhanced call-detail dataset repeatedly identifies:

ESN 353566115608229 → MDN 423-827-7511

That means this subscriber-information document and the call-detail spreadsheet concern the same identified cellular device.

The case-file organization also places this subscriber record specifically under Derik Brown phone records / Derik Brown TracFone, which strongly explains why investigators retained it with Brown’s materials. The folder label is useful provenance, but it is not a substitute for an actual subscriber-name field on the carrier document.

This record should be compared with:

• the enhanced call-detail spreadsheet for 423-827-7511;

• carrier subscriber-return records;

• search warrants or subpoenas for Brown’s telephone records;

• Stokes’s emails concerning Derik Brown’s cell records;

• the three phones seized from Brown in Coffee County;

• phone property and chain-of-custody documentation;

• and any records tying a specific seized handset, IMEI/ESN, or telephone number to Brown.

The critical technical connection is:

ESN 353566115608229 = the device identifier appearing in the 423-827-7511 call-detail records.

If another carrier return identifies Derik Brown by name as the subscriber or user associated with this ESN/MDN, that document should be cross-referenced with this one rather than treating the folder name alone as subscriber proof.

Catalog Category

Digital Evidence / Cell Phones → Carrier Records → Subscriber Information → ESN 353566115608229 / Derik Brown Phone Records

TracFone Device Record — IMEI 353566115608229 and IMEI 354834108148531

Document Type: Carrier / Device Identification Image Record
Evidence Type: Digital Evidence / Cellular Device Records
Carrier Context: TracFone
Target IMEI #1: 353566115608229
Target IMEI #2: 354834108148531
Associated Person: Derik Brown
Related Investigation: Randall Leslie homicide investigation
File Type: TIFF Image
Document Length: 1 image
Filename: 353.566.115.608.229, 354.834.108.148.531.TIF

Summary

This TIFF image is preserved within the Derik Brown TracFone / Brown phone-record portion of the Randall Leslie investigative file and is specifically named for two cellular-device IMEI numbers:

• 353566115608229

• 354834108148531

The significance of those two numbers is confirmed by Investigator Corey Stokes’s TracFone search-warrant affidavit.

In that affidavit, Stokes states that the target of the search was stored TracFone information pertaining to IMEI 353566115608229 and IMEI 354834108148531 and states that the target IMEI numbers had been confirmed as belonging to Derik Brown, whom Stokes described as a person of interest in the Randall Leslie homicide investigation.

The warrant sought extensive carrier information for both devices, including subscriber information, call-detail records, text-message records, location information, electronically stored records, cloud information, cell-site data, and related carrier records for the period May 1, 2020 through July 7, 2020.

This TIFF should therefore be treated as a separate carrier/device record associated with the two IMEIs targeted in the Brown TracFone warrant, rather than as a duplicate of the enhanced call-detail spreadsheet.

The first IMEI, 353566115608229, is the same device identifier appearing throughout the enhanced call-detail records for telephone number 423-827-7511.

The second IMEI, 354834108148531, appears separately in the case-file production, including a spreadsheet titled “NO CDR 354.834.108.148.531.xls.” That file title indicates that the production contained a separate carrier record concerning the second IMEI for which no call-detail-record dataset was produced or available in that particular file.

What This Document Establishes

This record, read together with the TracFone warrant materials, establishes that:

• investigators were tracking two separate cellular IMEI identifiers associated with Derik Brown;

• the two targeted IMEIs were:

  • 353566115608229

  • 354834108148531;

• Investigator Stokes sought TracFone records for both devices;

• the requested period was May 1, 2020 through July 7, 2020;

• the requested information included subscriber data, calls, texts, location information, stored communications, and cell-site information;

• the first IMEI corresponds to the device appearing in the enhanced call-detail records for 423-827-7511;

• and the second IMEI was sufficiently distinct that the case-file production contains a separate file titled “NO CDR 354.834.108.148.531.xls.”

The TIFF itself should not be treated as proving more than what is visually documented in the carrier image and confirmed by the related warrant materials.

Why This Document Matters

This record matters because it shows that the Brown phone investigation was not limited to a single device identifier.

Stokes sought records for two IMEIs, both of which he represented in the affidavit as having been confirmed as belonging to Derik Brown.

That distinction becomes important when reconstructing Brown’s cellular evidence.

The first device, IMEI 353566115608229, is tied to the enhanced call-detail dataset showing activity for MDN 423-827-7511.

The second device, IMEI 354834108148531, appears to have been handled separately in the carrier production. The existence of a file expressly labeled “NO CDR” for that IMEI means the production should be examined carefully to determine:

• whether the device had no qualifying call-detail records;

• whether the carrier could not produce records;

• whether the device was inactive;

• whether it used another MDN;

• or whether some other carrier-return explanation was provided.

The title “NO CDR” alone does not answer which of those explanations applies.

This record should be compared directly with:

• the TracFone search-warrant affidavit, warrant, and return;

• the subscriber-information record for IMEI 353566115608229;

• the enhanced call-detail records for 423-827-7511;

• the “NO CDR 354834108148531” spreadsheet;

• Coffee County records documenting Brown’s seized phones;

• the records showing transfer of Brown’s three phones to Chattanooga Police;

• property sheets identifying the individual phones;

• and any forensic extraction reports identifying IMEI, MEID, serial number, SIM, or telephone number for each seized device.

This comparison could establish which of Brown’s seized phones corresponded to each carrier identifier and whether investigators obtained complete carrier records for all devices associated with him.

Catalog Category

Digital Evidence / Cell Phones → Carrier Records → Device / IMEI Identification → Derik Brown → IMEI 353566115608229 & 354834108148531

TracFone Subscriber Information Response — IMEI 354834108148531

Document Type: Carrier Subscriber-Information Response / No-Records Notice
Carrier: TracFone
Target IMEI: 354834108148531
Associated Investigation: Randall Leslie homicide investigation
Related Person: Derik Brown — based on the related TracFone warrant targeting this IMEI
Document Length: 1 page

Summary

This one-page TracFone subscriber-information response concerns device identifier 354834108148531.

The document contains a direct carrier response stating:

“NUMBER NOT ASSIGNED TO TRACFONE. NO RECORDS FOUND.”

This is important because investigators had sought TracFone records for two separate device identifiers associated in the search-warrant materials with Derik Brown:

• 353566115608229

• 354834108148531

For the second identifier, 354834108148531, TracFone reported that the number/device identifier was not assigned to TracFone and that no records were found.

This clarifies the separate file previously identified as “NO CDR 354.834.108.148.531.xls.” The absence of call-detail records was not merely a blank production or unexplained omission. This carrier response expressly states that TracFone found no subscriber records because the identifier was not assigned to TracFone.

What This Document Establishes

This document directly establishes that:

• TracFone received or processed an inquiry concerning 354834108148531;

• TracFone reported that the identifier was not assigned to TracFone;

• TracFone reported “NO RECORDS FOUND”;

• therefore, TracFone did not produce subscriber information for this identifier;

• and the lack of TracFone call-detail records for this identifier has an identified carrier explanation.

This document does not establish:

• that the device did not exist;

• that the IMEI was invalid;

• that the device was never used;

• that it had no cellular service;

• or that no other wireless carrier had records for it.

It establishes only that TracFone reported that the identifier was not assigned to its service and that TracFone had no records for it.

Why This Document Matters

This document resolves an important question concerning the second device identifier targeted in the Derik Brown TracFone warrant.

The warrant sought information from TracFone for both 353566115608229 and 354834108148531.

The first identifier produced substantial call-detail information associated with telephone number 423-827-7511.

The second identifier did not.

This document now supplies the stated reason:

TracFone says 354834108148531 was not assigned to TracFone.

That means the proper next evidentiary question is not simply, “Why are the records missing?”

The more precise question is:

Which carrier, if any, serviced IMEI 354834108148531 during the relevant period?

This record should therefore be compared with:

• the TracFone search-warrant affidavit and return;

• the TIFF identifying both target IMEIs;

• the file labeled NO CDR 354834108148531;

• Coffee County records identifying the three phones seized from Derik Brown;

• CPD property sheets;

• forensic extraction reports;

• SIM-card records;

• MEID/IMEI information from each seized handset;

• and any carrier-lookup or subscriber records identifying which provider serviced the second device.

If investigators believed this second IMEI belonged to Brown but TracFone stated that it was not a TracFone device/account, the complete investigative record should show whether investigators then identified the correct carrier and sought records from that provider.

The document therefore does not prove that records were unavailable from every source. It proves that TracFone itself had none.

Catalog Category

Digital Evidence / Cell Phones → Carrier Records → No-Records Responses → TracFone → IMEI 354834108148531

Stokes Email — TracFone Records for Derik Brown

Document Type: Law-Enforcement Email / Carrier-Records Transmission
Agency: Chattanooga Police Department / TracFone Wireless
CPD Complaint Number: 20-052161
Subject: Derik Brown’s cellular records
Target IMEI #1: 353566115608229
Target IMEI #2: 354834108148531
Original Carrier Email Date: July 27, 2020 at 1:41 PM
Forwarded by Corey Stokes: September 29, 2021 at 10:58 AM
Original Sender: Jacky Delus — TracFone Wireless
Original Recipient: Corey Stokes — Chattanooga Police Department
Forwarded To: Yolanda Massey — Chattanooga
Document Length: 2 pages

Summary

This two-page document is a City of Chattanooga email record showing the receipt and later internal forwarding of TracFone records concerning Derik Brown in the Randall Leslie investigation.

The underlying carrier email was sent on July 27, 2020 at 1:41 PM by Jacky Delus of TracFone Wireless to Chattanooga Police Investigator Corey Stokes, with TracFone’s Subpoena Compliance unit copied.

The subject identifies the two target device numbers:

• 353566115608229

• 354834108148531

The carrier email directly references those two identifiers and provides information about TracFone’s subscriber-record practices.

TracFone advised Stokes that it operates as a prepaid wireless service and that customers are not required to provide subscriber information when activating service.

That statement is important when interpreting the separate subscriber-information returns. A lack of a subscriber name in the carrier records does not necessarily mean that the device lacked service or was unidentified by investigators; TracFone specifically advised law enforcement that customer identification information was not mandatory at activation.

The email also provided instructions concerning authentication of the records if they were later used in court. TracFone stated that it had no local records custodian in Chattanooga and that its custodian of records was located at corporate headquarters in Miami, Florida. It requested at least two weeks’ notice and prepaid travel arrangements if custodian testimony were required.

More than a year later, on September 29, 2021 at 10:58 AM, Stokes forwarded the TracFone email and its attachments to Yolanda Massey.

Stokes added the short identifying statement:

“Derik Brown’s records 20-52161”

This is particularly important because it directly identifies the TracFone production as Derik Brown’s records and associates it with CPD case 20-052161.

The forwarded email shows that the original TracFone production contained seven attachments.

Those attachments were:

1. 353.566.115.608.229, 354.834.108.148.531.TIF — approximately 108 KB

2. 353.566.115.608.229 Sub Info.pdf — approximately 97 KB

3. NO SUB INFO 354.834.108.148.531.pdf — approximately 87 KB

4. NO CDR 354.834.108.148.531.xls — approximately 34 KB

5. 353.566.115.608.229 CDR.xls — approximately 141 KB

6. Subpoena Compliance - Definition of Terms and FAQ's_updated_4_28_2014.pdf — approximately 403 KB

7. Updated Auto Response LER_Aug 31 2012.pdf — approximately 548 KB.

What This Document Establishes

This document directly establishes that:

• TracFone transmitted records concerning IMEI 353566115608229 and IMEI 354834108148531 to Investigator Corey Stokes;

• the transmission occurred on July 27, 2020 at 1:41 PM;

• the records came directly from Jacky Delus at TracFone Wireless;

• TracFone’s Subpoena Compliance unit was copied on the communication;

• Stokes later expressly identified the materials as “Derik Brown’s records”;

• Stokes associated the records with CPD case 20-052161;

• Stokes forwarded the complete carrier email to Yolanda Massey on September 29, 2021;

• the original carrier production contained seven attachments;

• the attachments included subscriber information and call-detail records for 353566115608229;

• the attachments separately documented no subscriber information and no CDR production for 354834108148531;

• TracFone explained that it is a prepaid carrier and does not require customers to provide subscriber information upon activation;

• and TracFone provided instructions for authenticating its records through a corporate records custodian if necessary at trial.

Why This Document Matters

This is an important provenance and authentication document.

The individual spreadsheets and PDFs tell us what records TracFone produced.

This email tells us where those records came from, when police received them, who received them, and how police themselves identified them.

That distinction matters.

Stokes did not merely store these files in a folder later labeled with Brown’s name. In the September 2021 forwarding email, Stokes himself wrote:

“Derik Brown’s records 20-52161.”

That provides a direct police-generated association between the TracFone production and Derik Brown.

It also supports the connection between Brown and the two IMEIs targeted in the search warrant without relying solely on later defense characterization or a Dropbox folder name.

The July 27, 2020 date is also significant.

The carrier records were already in Stokes’s possession approximately one month after Randall Leslie’s body was discovered and long before Brown later became a prosecution witness.

This means the call-detail information associated with 353566115608229 / 423-827-7511 was available to investigators during the original investigation.

That timeline becomes important when comparing the phone records against:

• Brown’s interviews;

• Brown’s statements about his movements and involvement;

• Brown’s possession of Randall Leslie’s vehicle;

• the three phones seized from Brown;

• the May 27–28 timeline;

• later charging decisions;

• subsequent federal proceedings involving Brown;

• and Brown’s eventual testimony against Holland.

This email also resolves the provenance of the separate “NO CDR” and “NO SUB INFO” records for IMEI 354834108148531.

Those were not informal notes created by police. They were part of the seven-file package transmitted by TracFone directly to Stokes.

That makes the carrier’s statement that the second identifier was not assigned to TracFone and that no records were found more significant as a carrier-generated response.

The carrier’s warning about subscriber information also matters when interpreting the first device.

TracFone specifically states that because it is a prepaid service, subscriber information is not required upon activation.

Therefore, the absence or incompleteness of subscriber-name information should not automatically be treated as evidence that investigators could not associate the device with Brown. Other evidence—including the warrant affidavit, police records, possession of the handset, IMEI information, and Stokes’s own labeling of the returned materials—must be considered separately.

Finally, this document provides an important record-authentication pathway.

TracFone expressly informed law enforcement how a records custodian could authenticate the production for court. That should be compared with the trial record to determine whether these records were introduced, authenticated, disclosed, discussed, or omitted.

Catalog Category

Digital Evidence / Cell Phones → Carrier Records → Transmission & Authentication Correspondence → TracFone → Derik Brown