Phone use behind the wheel is a recurring factor in St. Louis crashes, especially on the I-64/40 corridor. Phone records obtained through the legal process can show device activity around the time of impact and counter any denial-based defenses.
Cell phone records provide objective evidence of device use around the crash time. Attorneys obtain these records through subpoenas (court orders) that require carriers to produce call logs, text timestamps, and data-use records. Understanding this process helps when insurers dispute distraction or drivers deny phone use.
Call (314) 300-0314 or contact us online today for a free consultation.
Key Takeaways for Cell Phone Records in Missouri Car Accidents
- Attorneys generally obtain carrier records after filing suit, or through court-authorized pre-action discovery to preserve evidence under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.02.
- Records show call times, text message timestamps, and data usage with precise timestamps, revealing device activity at the exact moment of impact.
- Carrier retention varies by provider and record type, and may be shorter than a year for some datasets, making early attorney involvement critical to avoid purge windows.
- Missouri and Illinois discovery rules both permit phone record subpoenas when distraction causes crashes, though filing deadlines differ significantly between states.
- The forum court controls the discovery procedure (Missouri or Illinois), so the rules that govern subpoenas depend on where the case is filed.
Why I-64/40 Corridor Accidents Often Involve Phone Distraction
I-64 and Highway 40 through downtown St. Louis create high-risk conditions for distracted driving. Stop-and-go traffic between the Poplar Street Bridge and Forest Park can lead drivers to check messages during slowdowns. Rush hour congestion means frequent braking that distracted drivers miss entirely.
The corridor’s multiple exit points demand constant attention. Downtown exits at Jefferson Avenue, Tucker Boulevard, and 14th Street require lane changes and merge awareness. Drivers who are focused on their phones drift across lanes or miss exit signals entirely.
According to NHTSA data, distracted driving contributes to thousands of crashes nationally each year. Missouri’s dense urban corridors like I-64/40 see frequent rear-end collisions and sideswipe accidents where phone use plays a central role.
What Cell Phone Records Actually Show
Cell phone records from carriers reveal specific data types that prove device use timing. Understanding what records contain helps set realistic expectations about evidence strength.
Call Detail Records and Timestamps
Call detail records (CDRs) document every incoming and outgoing call with precise timestamps. Records show call initiation time, duration, and termination. A call active at 5:47:23 PM that ended at 5:47:45 PM proves the driver was on the phone during a crash occurring at 5:47:30 PM.
Carriers provide precise timestamps (often to the second), which helps align phone activity with crash times.
Text Message Metadata
Text message records show when messages were sent or received. While carriers don’t retain message content for privacy reasons, timestamps reveal texting activity. A text sent at the crash moment is strong evidence of manual phone use while driving. Text message content is generally unavailable via subpoena under federal law, requiring additional steps for recovery.
Incoming text timestamps also matter. A message received seconds before impact suggests the driver might have been reading notifications or checking their device. Multiple texts in the minutes leading to a crash show a pattern of ongoing distraction.
Data Usage Logs
Data usage records expose internet activity, app use, and social media browsing. Data consumption at the crash time can indicate activity such as checking email, scrolling feeds, or watching videos. Heavy data usage patterns reveal active engagement rather than passive phone presence.
The Legal Subpoena Process in Missouri
Obtaining phone records requires formal legal procedures initiated by an attorney. To gain access to this critical evidence, you will need legal representation, as this process requires specific legal steps. Missouri’s hands-free statute took effect August 28, 2023; a warning-only phase for most noncommercial drivers ended January 1, 2025, after which citations may be issued under §304.822.
Requirements for Issuing Subpoenas
Missouri law grants attorneys subpoena power once lawsuits are filed, or through court-authorized pre-action discovery under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.02. You cannot subpoena records independently without court authority. Informal requests typically fail; federal law limits content disclosure and governs how carriers may release records. Federal laws such as the Stored Communications Act protect message content from disclosure without warrants. Providers may voluntarily disclose non-content records to non-governmental entities (18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(6)), and in practice carriers require a subpoena or court order; governmental access is governed by § 2703.
The subpoena must identify the specific phone number, account holder, and time period requested. Attorneys typically request records covering several hours before and after crashes to show activity patterns.
No permission from the other driver is needed. Subpoenas compel production regardless of driver cooperation. Drivers cannot block record disclosure by refusing consent or claiming privacy violations.
Timeline From Filing to Records Receipt
The discovery process typically requires several months. After filing the lawsuit, attorneys serve subpoenas on wireless carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Most carriers respond within 30-60 days of proper service. Some require additional documentation or court orders before releasing records.
Early attorney involvement prevents evidence loss. Carriers purge old data according to retention policies that vary by provider and record type. Waiting too long before hiring an attorney risks permanent data loss.
Preservation Letters Protect Evidence
Attorneys send preservation letters to carriers immediately upon retention, even before filing lawsuits. These letters put carriers on notice to preserve specific records and avoid routine deletion. Attorneys typically send preservation letters prior to suit to avoid data loss from carrier purges. While not legally binding like subpoenas, preservation letters create paper trails showing the carrier knew about pending litigation.
Courts may impose sanctions if carriers or drivers destroy records after receiving a preservation notice.
What Phone Records Prove in Distracted Driving Cases
Phone records provide several types of proof that strengthen distracted driving claims beyond driver denials or lack of eyewitness testimony.
Objective Proof Overcoming Denials
Drivers routinely deny phone use after crashes. Common explanations include hands-free operation, looking for a dropped item, or denying any use. Phone records eliminate these denials with objective data showing exactly when devices were active.
Records showing a text sent a second before impact severely undercut credibility. Juries and insurance adjusters recognize that drivers cannot honestly claim they weren’t texting when records show otherwise.
Activity Patterns Revealing Habitual Distraction
Records showing continuous phone activity before crashes reveal patterns. A driver who made three calls, sent five texts, and used data extensively in the 20 minutes before impact demonstrates habitual distraction rather than momentary lapse.
Persistent phone use while driving shows a disregard for safety.
Correlation With Accident Reconstruction
Attorneys combine phone records with accident reconstruction analysis. A lack of skid marks combined with active texting at impact creates compelling evidence. The driver never saw the hazard because their attention remained on the device.
Limitations of Cell Phone Record Evidence
Phone records provide powerful evidence but have limitations that require realistic expectations.
Records Show Activity, Not Screen Attention
CDRs show device activity but do not prove where the driver’s eyes were. A driver might argue they were using hands-free features legally or that a passenger handled the device. Additional evidence strengthens phone record proof—witness testimony about observed behavior, admissions in police reports, or single-occupant vehicle facts eliminate passenger use defenses.
Content Versus Metadata Distinction
In civil matters, carriers produce non-content records (for example, numbers and timestamps); message content is not provided under the SCA. You won’t see what texts said or who was called by name. This limitation rarely matters for proving distraction timing, as timing matters more than content.
Absence of Records Has Meaning
Sometimes records show little or no activity at the crash time. That absence does not necessarily help the driver. Combined with other evidence, lack of phone activity might support alternative distraction claims like eating, grooming, or passenger interaction.
How Insurance Companies Respond to Phone Record Evidence
Insurers recognize phone record strength and adjust strategies when faced with objective proof.
Settlement Value Increases With Proof
Claims supported by phone records often resolve for higher amounts than cases with disputed distraction. Insurers evaluate trial risk when objective evidence eliminates credibility battles. Timestamps can be more persuasive than driver testimony, which can motivate stronger settlement offers.
Arguments Despite Clear Evidence
Even with strong phone records, insurers may argue comparative fault. They might claim you contributed through speeding or following too closely. Missouri’s pure comparative fault system allows recovery even with shared responsibility, but insurers use these arguments to reduce percentages.
Causation disputes also occur. Insurers might argue phone use occurred but didn’t cause the crash, pointing to road conditions or other factors. Strong correlation between timing and accident dynamics helps overcome these arguments.
Missouri and Illinois Discovery Rules for Phone Records
Cross-border crashes in the St. Louis area involve different state rules governing record subpoenas and admissibility.
Missouri Discovery Framework
Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery in state court cases. Rule 57 permits broad discovery of relevant evidence, including phone records showing distraction. Missouri uses pure comparative fault, meaning even strong phone evidence doesn’t guarantee full recovery if you share any responsibility.
Illinois Rules for Metro East Accidents
Illinois Supreme Court Rules govern discovery in Illinois cases, which permit subpoenas for phone records in distracted driving claims. However, Illinois uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar—you recover nothing if you’re more than 50% at fault.
Which State’s Rules Apply
The forum court controls discovery procedure. Missouri cases follow Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., Rules 56/57); Illinois cases follow Illinois Supreme Court Rules (e.g., Rules 201 and 204). Substantive choice-of-law is a separate analysis. Attorneys analyze jurisdiction carefully when crashes occur near state borders or involve out-of-state drivers.
Combining Phone Records With Other Evidence
Phone records are most effective when combined with other evidence to build a comprehensive liability case. Eyewitness statements describing observed phone use, combined with records proving device activity, create powerful proof. Physical evidence such as a lack of skid marks can indicate no braking before impact; combined with phone records, it supports an inference that the driver did not see the hazard.
Driver admissions in police reports sometimes contain statements about phone use. Even statements such as “I may have been checking my GPS,” when paired with extensive activity records, can undermine credibility. Attorneys use these inconsistencies to undermine driver credibility during negotiations or trial.
Steps to Preserve Phone Record Evidence
Immediate actions after I-64/40 crashes help to protect phone record evidence and strengthen later subpoena efforts:
- Write down exactly what you observed about the other driver’s phone use, noting whether they were holding a device, where their eyes focused, and their head position before impact.
- If available, keep and organize any photos of the scene, including images that show phones on seats or in cup holders.
- If it wasn’t documented at the scene, call the appropriate agency’s non-emergency line to request that your observation about the other driver’s device use be added to the report.
- Contact an attorney quickly to allow immediate preservation letters to carriers, as waiting weeks or months risks data purging according to routine retention schedules.
FAQ for Cell Phone Records in Missouri Car Accidents
Can my lawyer get the other driver’s text messages after an accident?
Attorneys can subpoena metadata showing when texts were sent and received, but carriers don’t retain actual message content for privacy reasons. The timestamps prove distraction timing, which matters more than content for most distracted driving cases. If message content becomes critical, device forensics might recover it, but this requires additional legal processes beyond carrier subpoenas.
How long do phone companies keep call and text records?
Carrier retention varies by provider and record type, and may be shorter than a year for some datasets. This limited retention period makes early attorney involvement critical. Waiting too long before hiring representation risks permanent evidence loss as carriers delete old records according to routine data management policies. Use preservation letters where appropriate to protect evidence.
Do you need the other driver’s permission to subpoena their phone records?
No. Attorneys with pending lawsuits can subpoena phone records without driver permission or consent. The legal subpoena power compels carriers to produce records regardless of driver cooperation. Drivers cannot block disclosure by refusing consent or claiming privacy violations, as federal law permits disclosure in response to valid court orders and subpoenas.
What if the driver deleted their texts before we could get records?
Drivers cannot delete carrier records, only data stored on their personal devices. Wireless carriers maintain independent records on their systems that drivers cannot access or modify. Even if a driver deletes every text and call log from their phone, carriers possess complete records showing all account activity. This protection against evidence destruction makes carrier records more reliable than device data.
Get the Evidence You Need to Win Your I-64/40 Crash Case
Insurance adjusters count on evidence gaps when denying distracted driving claims. Phone records eliminate these gaps with objective proof that survives driver denials. Understanding that this evidence exists and requires attorney involvement empowers you to pursue accountability rather than accepting inadequate settlements.
DM Injury Law’s St. Louis team knows how to obtain and effectively use phone records in distracted driving cases. Our attorneys handle the entire subpoena process, send preservation letters protecting evidence, and combine phone records with reconstruction analysis and witness testimony. With more than $900 million recovered, we build cases strong enough to compel fair settlements or win at trial.
If you suspect the driver who hit you on I-64, Highway 40, or anywhere in St. Louis was distracted by their phone, don’t let denials defeat your claim. Contact DM Injury Law at (314) 300-0314 for a free consultation or contact us online. We’re available 24/7 and don’t get paid unless we win.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own facts.
Call (314) 300-0314 or contact us online today for a free consultation.