SACRAMENTO, Calif. (July 17, 2015) – Two California bills that would work together to help end the warrantless use of “stingrays” passed unanimously out of important Assembly committees this week. Passage into law would not only help protect privacy in California, but would also hinder part of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Mark Leno (D) and Sen. Joel Anderson (R) introduced Senate Bill 178 (SB178) in February. The bill would prohibit a government entity from compelling the production of or access to electronic communication information or electronic device information without a search warrant, a wiretap order, or an order for electronic reader records, with only a few exceptions.

The Committee on Public Safety approved the measure by a 5-0 vote Tuesday. It now moves on to the Appropriations Committee.

Passage would 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. SB178 would require a warrant, wiretap order, or an order for e-reader records before police could deploy these devices under most circumstances.

The legislation would also require law enforcement to obtain a warrant, wiretap order or or an order for electronic reader records before compelling any person other than the owner of the device to produce electronic information. This specifically includes third party providers. SB178 does include an exception to the warrant requirement “If the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires access to the electronic device information.” It also allows access to information in order to locate a lost or stolen device.

Any information collected with consent must be destroyed within 90 days. Police must obtain a court order within three days of collecting it in an emergency situation in order to retain it.

The legislation also stipulates that law enforcement gather no more information than is necessary to achieve the objective of the search, and imposes other conditions on the use of the search warrant or wiretap order and the information obtained, including retention and disclosure requirements. Information obtained in violation of these provisions would be inadmissible in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings.

Representatives from a number of big tech firms including Facebook. Google, Lyft and Tech Freedom came to the hearing in support of the bill. There was some opposition by law enforcement lobbyists, but supporters called it lukewarm.

“I’m still not entirely sure how much more amending will go on, nor what Brown will do in the end, but so far so good,” Media Alliance executive director Tracy Rosenberg said.


SB178 works together with a second bill to create a powerful one-two punch against the use of stingray devices.

Sen. Jerry Hill, Sen. Joel Anderson and Sen. Mark Leno introduced SB741 earlier this year. The bill would prohibit a local agency from acquiring or using a stingray device unless “approved by a resolution or ordinance adopted by its legislative body at a regularly scheduled public meeting where the public has a reasonable opportunity to comment.”

The bill also requires the resolution or ordinance to set forth policies on stingray use based on specific guidelines outlined in the legislation.

The Committee on Local Government passed SB741 9-0 on Wednesday. It now moves on to the Committee on Appropriations, where it will be considered after the summer break in mid-August.

Since local police generally receive these devices directly from the FBI, or through grant money provided to them by the FBI, passage of SB741 allow local communities to interpose themselves in this process and block the FBI’s programs from coming to fruition.


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, as alluded to by the Tacoma police chief. 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.The Baltimore Sun reported that 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 state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As 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. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.


By making information “obtained” in violation of the law inadmissible in court, SB178 would effectively stop one practical effect of NSA spying in California.

Reuters revealed the extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases “rarely involve national security issues.” Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.

In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data, using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.

This is “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War,” Binney said.

Mike Maharrey

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.