Illinois Law Prohibits Warrantless Stingray Spying; Hinders Federal Surveillance ProgramBy Mike Maharrey Sen. Daniel Biss (D-Skokie) introduced Senate Bill 2343 (SB2343) on Jan. 28. The new law will help block the use of cell site simulators, known as stingrays. These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device. The new law prohibits the use of stingrays except to locate or track the location of a communications device or to identify a communications device. That means law enforcement cannot listen in on conversations using cell site simulators under any circumstances. The House passed SB2343 115-0. The Senate approved the measure 57-0. With Rauners signature, the bill will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017. The legislation stipulates that before deploying a stingray device for location tracking, law enforcement agencies must get a warrant, with only a few exceptions. Warrantless use of these devices will only be allowed in certain specific emergency situations. Under the law, if a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a law enforcement agency used a cell site simulator to gather information in violation of the limits in the act, then the information is presumed to be inadmissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding. An amendment approved by the Judiciary Committee strengthened the bill, requiring police destroy any information gathered on non-targeted devices within 24 hours if the stingray was used to track or locate an known device, and 72 hours if used to track or locate an unknown device. The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported last fall, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement. Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement. Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the states attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce? he asked. Yes, Cabreja said. As privacysos.org put it, The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let criminals go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying. The feds sell the technology in the name of anti-terrorism efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations. Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal data bases. The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the information sharing environment or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it. According to its website, the ISE provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies. In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access. In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The new Illinois law representa major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy. Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of 98 Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE Is this the same Illinois that cant pass a budget? The question that remains is where is the FCC license for these devices, manufactured by Harris, a company that manufactures transmitters for industry? In order to transmit a signal of more that 100 milliwatts, the FCC requires the user to obtain a license for that specific device. If law enforcement is using these Stingray devices without such license, then they themselves are breaking the law. Any resulting prosecution should then be thrown out under the doctrine of clean hands. 