Wireless Signal Jamming: Implications for Jail Management and Policing
Legislation introduced into both houses of Congress could allow prisons the right to block cellular signals within their walls. Introduced in January, the Safe Prisons Communication Act of 2009 seeks to block cell phone activity by inmates that have had cellular devices smuggled into prison for them. The act (HR 560 and SB 251) would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to authorize the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or a state governor to petition the FCC to allow wireless signal jamming within a correctional facility’s boundaries. Current law prohibits interference with licensed radio communication unless it’s by an exempted federal agency like the Drug Enforcement Administration but not the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
In the past, prison authorities had near complete control over an inmate’s communication with the outside world. Tactics such as checking mail and parceling out telephone access (at scheduled times and through easily tapped landlines) kept communication for inmates restricted. Today, however, as cell phones proliferate, that has changed. Inmates are using ingenious methods to obtain the illegal devices for contact with family and friends on the outside, or worse; to conduct criminal activity from behind bars. The phones are secreted into footballs and tossed over prison fences, carried in body cavities and delivered by UPS. They’re smuggled into prisons around the world by the thousands through visitors and corrupt guards. Inmates use them to intimidate lawmakers, victims and witnesses, run drug cartels, plan escapes and pass the time by calling girlfriends and grandmothers without officers listening in.
This access spells trouble for corrections facilities. A man awaiting trial on a homicide charge in Maryland has been accused of arranging the murder of a key witness via cell phone. Two Texas death-row inmates have been found in possession of cell phones, one of which was used to threaten state senator John Whitmire. In Oklahoma, a gang leader coordinated mass violence in five prisons using a cell phone. And in South Carolina, inmates have used cell phones to conduct credit card fraud from behind bars. The problem is not confined to the American prison system. In Brazil, where cell phones have been smuggled into prisons via carrier pigeon, phones have been used to organize and plan prison riots. Canadian prosecutors allege that a drug kingpin continued his lucrative business while behind bars with the aid of a cell phone.
Correctional officers in Maryland and other states have boosted efforts to fight the problem, which has worsened as phones have cheapened. Maryland pioneered using K-9 dogs to sniff out the phones. Some states, like Florida and New Jersey, have passed new laws making cell phone smuggling a felony crime. In other states, like South Carolina, prison systems are short funded and cannot afford to divert manpower to institutional searches. That state, along with others, is hoping the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 will eliminate the need for such searches.
Signal jamming technology prevents a cell phone or other wireless device’s signal from reaching out. Jamming devices can be set to jam signals from a distance of 50 to 500 meters, and areas as small as an auditorium can be targeted. The use of these devices is a closely held federal tool. The FBI and Secret Service have standing authority to use such technology for major events, such as State of the Union addresses, Inaugural festivities and visits by certain foreign dignitaries. After the 2006 transit bombings in London, the Department of Homeland Security reached an agreement under the National Communications System with cell phone companies. The agreement means that cell phone companies will voluntarily shut down service under certain circumstances. The U.S. Military is also capable of shutting down communications over wide areas, and has done so overseas while conducting raids or traveling on high-risk roadways. The technology can counter bombs triggered by cell phones, garage door openers, remote controls for toy cars or other devices that emit radio signals.
While the current act does not specifically address the needs of state police and emergency management agencies, state and local law enforcement agencies are also campaigning for the right to access the technology. Police and others say it can be used to stop terrorists from coordinating an attack and prevent suspects from erasing evidence on wireless phones. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, plans to introduce legislation that would give law enforcement agencies “the tools they need to selectively jam” communications in the event of a terrorist attack, according to a spokeswoman.
The quest to expand the technology has trigged a discussion about how widely it should be allowed, and whether its value as a crime-fighting strategy outweighs its downsides. Opponents, including the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), point out that when authorities disable wireless service, whether during a terrorist attack or inside a prison, that action can stop calls that could help in an emergency. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) have expressed similar concerns. The CTIA also warns that letting the nation’s 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies decide when and where to jam cell phone calls could create potential service disruptions for law abiding citizens.
Supporters of the less restricted usage, including the American Association of State Correctional Administrators, District of Columbia Attorney General’s Office, Texas state prison officials, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond F. Kelly, and South Carolina’s prison system; say the technology can save lives, time and money. Bomb squads can use them to prevent detonation of bombs, while prisons can stop inmates from using cell phones to engage in further criminal activities. Jailers argue that it will help prevent fights over the phones in jail, where they trade for up to ten times their retail value. Others point to the November Mumbai terrorist attacks, when hostage-takers used media spotters and mobile phones to help them outmaneuver police at hotels, train stations and other targets. Signal jamming proponents argue this type of coordinated attack can be thwarted through the use of the technology.
Planned tests of the technology have been successfully legally challenged by the CTIA in Washington and Louisiana. Texas and D.C. officials are currently seeking permission to conduct such tests, and South Carolina officials staged a test without permission in November, 2008. In a pilot project, the FBI deputized 10 local bomb squads across the country in 2007, to utilize radio jammers similar to military technology used overseas.
Hearings on the act are expected in May. For now, jails must rely on chairs that can detect metal hidden in body cavities, x-rays, dog searches and daily sweeps. Law enforcement will continue to utilize detective work and surveillance methods to disrupt terrorist plots. While tried and true, it can be argued that these methods are behind the times with regard to technology that can be used by law-breakers. Whether or not jail management and law enforcement agencies will be allowed to access these tools remains to be seen. If more broad access is granted, the implications for fighting crime will be immense.