Documents Reveal Unregulated Use of Stingrays in California

Local law enforcement agencies across the Bay Area have so-called stingray devices, a powerful cellphone surveillance tool, and more are planning to acquire the technology, according to public records recently obtained by Sacramento News10. The devices are highly intrusive and completely unregulated. Although the Wall Street Journal reported in 2011 that they were being used by the federal government, the News10 records reveal for the first time that these devices are also in widespread use by local authorities stretching from San José to Sacramento. The revelations are troubling. Once again, we see the proliferation of powerful new surveillance tools, but without any rules to constrain their use. The acquisition of these devices is shrouded in secrecy and driven by federal grant money, which undermines local democratic oversight. Their actual use by local law enforcement reflects the all too common phenomenon of mission creep: Although the justification for acquiring these devices is “fighting terrorism,” agencies seem to be using them for ordinary criminal law enforcement.

What’s a stingray and what are the Fourth Amendment implications?

A stingray is a device that mimics a cell tower and thereby tricks all wireless devices on the same network into communicating with it. From a privacy perspective, this is worrying because it collects information about the devices and whereabouts of innocent third parties, not just the target of an investigation. In addition, it can pinpoint targets with extraordinary precision, meaning that individuals can be tracked even when they are inside their homes. Although some of the devices sold in this country are configured not to capture the content of communications, many offered for sale by surveillance vendors can be used for eavesdropping.

There is a real question as to whether stingrays can ever be used in a constitutional fashion. They are the electronic equivalent of dragnet “general searches” prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. But unfortunately, there are currently no statutes or regulations that specifically address how and under what circumstances stingrays can be used, and very little caselaw.

What agencies in Northern California have them?

The News10 records (linked below) show that the following local agencies, primarily in Northern California, already have, or have received grant funding to acquire, stingrays: Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Fremont Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Oakland Police Department, Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, San Diego Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, San José Police Department. Of particular note:

The Oakland Police Department has had a stingray since at least 2007, when its Criminal Investigation Division’s 2007 Annual Report boasts of 21 “Electronic Surveillance (Stingray) arrest[s]. Reports from 2008 and 2009 boast of 19 stingray arrests in each of those years. The OPD unit that used the stingray, the Criminal Investigation Division, focuses its investigative resources on guns, drugs, and gangs. OPD produced a lone invoice pertaining to the stingray – $13,425 spent in 2009 for “Maintenance Services.” How it acquired the device remains a mystery.

The San José documents are interesting for a few reasons:

  • Stingrays come with a hefty price tag. The San José Police Department purchased one or more stingrays (the invoices are heavily redacted, so we can’t tell how many units were purchased) in 2013 for $249,837.50, spending another $182,169.09 on training that year. The funds came from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative.
  • It’s hard to know whether San José or any of the other agencies that have purchased stingray devices are getting good value for their money because the contract was “sole source,” in other words, not put out to competitive bidding. The justification for skirting ordinary bidding processes is that Harris Corporation is the only manufacturer of this kind of device. (We are aware of other surveillance vendors that manufacture these devices, though a separate Freedom of Information Request we submitted to the Federal Communications Commission suggests that, as of June 2013, the only company to have obtained an equipment authorization from the FCC for this kind of device is Harris.)
  • The San José sole source documents identified other “police agencies, in California, that utilize this type of technology. These agencies include San Francisco PD, Oakland PD, Los Angeles PD, San Diego PD, Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.”

Even though the San José documents make clear that Sacramento has this equipment, Sacramento declined to provide documents or comment about its stingray(s), claiming that because “the acquisition or use of this technology comes with a strict non-disclosure requirement,” “it would be inappropriate for us to comment …” It would be troubling if government agencies could “contract out” of their statutory duties to provide the public with records, but it appears that Harris is using non-disclosure agreements elsewhere, and that other jurisdictions are also refusing to provide public records on this basis. The ACLU of Arizona recently sued the City of Tucson over its refusal to provide stingray documents.

San Francisco purchased a device in 2009 using grant funds, but “staff was unable to locate the request or approval date.” The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office unsuccessfully sought grant funding in 2013. It resubmitted an application in 2014, and this time was joined by the Fremont and Oakland Police Department. According to the agency that administers the funding, that application has now been approved.

What does all this mean?

The widespread acquisition and use of stingrays reflect many of the same disturbing trends we have seen with other new surveillance technologies.

  • The Fourth Amendment and transparency. Although we have questions about whether stingrays can ever be used in a constitutional fashion, at a minimum, we need to have clear, transparent rules. While many agencies have been using stingrays for years, there is currently no statutory, regulatory, or constitutional framework governing how they are used. Are law enforcement agencies seeking court authorization before they use the device? If so, what kind of court authorization – statutory orders or probable cause warrants? If they are seeking court authorization, are they providing courts with enough information so that courts can exercise their constitutional role of supervising the search? The constitution requires the police to go to court to get a warrant. But as with too many other surveillance devices, law enforcement is writing its own guidelines.
  • Communities take a stand. The process by which these devices are acquired is inconsistent with basic notions of transparency, accountability, and democratic oversight. Agencies are extremely secretive (Sacramento won’t discuss the matter because of a non-disclosure agreement with Harris). We’ve repeatedly seen that when the public actually learns about law enforcement efforts to expand surveillance, local communities stand up and say no. This happened just recently in Oakland, when the City Council, responding to enormous public pressure, substantially scaled back a sprawling spy center called the “Domain Awareness Center.” But when surveillance technology like stingrays are funded by federal grant money, the ordinary budget process is all too often bypassed – thus distorting ordinary democratic processes and short-circuiting public debate.
  • Mission creep. Stingrays, like so many other forms of surveillance technology, are susceptible to mission creep. San José’s grant proposal cited fighting terrorism as the intended use of the device. But Oakland appears to have used its stingray(s) for ordinary law enforcement purposes, such as investigating guns, drugs, and gangs. While these are legitimate law enforcement purposes, they don’t justify suspending the Fourth Amendment or bypassing ordinary democratic processes. And if Oakland is already using stingrays to investigate these non-terrorism related crimes, what other purposes will Oakland and other departments use them for in the future?

Originally posted on the ACLU of Northern California's blog.

View comments (9)
Read the Terms of Use


To me a stingray will always be the fish that bit our daughter and caused her to go into cardiac arrest before I could get her to the hospital and I was an EMT when it happened. I knew I was never going to get her there in time, but that I had no authority to administer what she needed (b/c it took Advanced Life Support, which DOESN'T include EMT-B's.)
I knew where all the fire departments in the area were though, b/c I made a point to know such a thing - unlike her dad, who could see my obsessive planning ahead as nothing more than "mostly paranoia."
So I took her to the nearest one, hoping against hope they weren't all out on call. They weren't and she got the help she needed.

Any other kind of stingray is of way less consequence in my mind.
The way my cell phone keeps freezing every single time I use it and then ripping away all the battery juice after I UNfreeze it, I'm more worried about being ripped off for how much I'm paying to have a damn broken phone than I'm worried that any sting ray will be able to pick up its location.
How can you spot something that keeps freezing, so that I have to take out the battery, put it back in and then all the juice is at 0 percent? That's like trying to spot a needle in a haystack the old-FASHIONED way.


I tried to access some of the PDFs linked in the article that are hosted by ACLU don't work for me (an unauthenticated user).

I would like to access this content and am unsure if its because I'm not logged in (I'm not making an account) or because something is wrong with the links or settings on ACLU's side.

Rekha Arulanantham

Hello. I'm sorry about the broken links. They should be fixed now. Thank you for alerting us!


A cell phone can be stopped from tracking if it is placed in a Faraday Cage. A Faraday cage is a metal or conductive envelope that completely surrounds the electronic device and stops signals from going into or out of the cage. Two or more wraps of aluminum foil with the edges wrapped over will work. This can also be accomplished by making a pouch out of a metallized ie conductive fabric. Search youtube for Detracktor for a demonstration.




As this unit mimics a cell tower, this means it not only receives cell signals but must also transmit back to the cell phone. The Federal Communications Commission therefore MUST issue a license for each of these units for them to be operated in a legal manner. Each authority operating a stingray without first obtaining a FCC license authorization for the unit IS in violation of the law. Ever heard of the FCC cracking down on "pirate radio stations?" Usually a $10,000 fine for a violation of the "operations without a license" statute. Why should law enforcement be allowed to bypass this requirement and transmit without obtaining a license when I cannot?
Additionally, legislation/FCC regulations in recent years outlawed radio scanners which could receive cell radio signals. Those who violated the law could be charged with "unauthorized reception of cellular signals" with (again) hefty monetary fines. The stingray would fall under this prohibition.
NO LAWS covering operation of the stingray? I don't think so!


So what do you use to burn it up? How power will they handle? Is this why phone providers are wanting to make a list of people using cell signal amplifiers for the fcc ? Or is it for there own repeaters?

Old Hippie

Since when do the laws requiring public disclosure of certain transactions and activities by public agencies get trumped by a NDA signed with a private company?

If the police were investigating a possible crime, they or the courts would not accept an accused person saying "I can't answer that, I'm under NDA". Similarly, the very existence of these devices indicate that crimes are possibly being committed here by these police agencies, and they must be investigated as well.

Vicki B.

You mean they DO read this stuff? Oh. I guess I better improve my attitude around here. :)
I thought they didn't read our comments. I sure as hell wouldn't WANT to be the one who has to read SOME of the sh*t they say on this web site. Sometimes, I might not even want to read my OWN stuff, especially when it concerns being for capital punishment, which is more than an opinion of mine. It arose from a personal situation, and more often than I'd like I find it difficult to address the issue without the convictions of my personal experience entering into it.
But the total BIGotry that some people spew across cyberspace appears uncalled for; it would depress the hell out of me to read some of the utter regurgitated pap that some people claim are religious beliefs.

The statement 'I like red better than blue' is an opinion. So is something like 'I don't believe in the Muslim religion so I don't follow it.'
Calling people names and making nasty comments about what they happen to be is not expressing an opinion and that's MY view of the matter.

Saying that gay behavior is perverted doesn't qualify as an opinion to my way of thinking. It IS a viewpoint but it has 20 tiny little barbs hiding in it that are meant to shoot out and stab the person in the eye, figuratively speaking. You could just say you're uncomfortable with the gay sex and be done with it. Calling it perverted behavior is doing MORE than saying your opinion, it's a deliberate attempt to make someone feel bad. I just hope that if any gay people read the comment that they never feel wrong about it. I hope they do the opposite of what the commenting person is trying to get them to do and think of it as the commenting person's problem, not theirs. End of rant.

Stay Informed