Fake towers used to track media producer

Federal investigators secured a warrant to deploy a cell‑site simulator—often called a “stingray”—to locate a producer who worked on CNN’s Don Lemon. The device, which masquerades as a legitimate cell tower, forces mobile phones to connect to it, revealing location data and, in some cases, call content.

According to Wired, the request was part of a broader effort to identify the producer’s whereabouts after the individual was allegedly involved in a security breach. The same warrant also sought permission to employ the device against Georgia Fort, a journalist, and a Minnesota state Senate candidate.

The use of a fake cell tower raises serious questions about privacy and the press.

Legal framework for invasive surveillance

The warrant was issued under the authority of the Federal Communications Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which allow law‑enforcement agencies to obtain court approval before deploying technology that can intercept or record electronic communications. In 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of a cell‑site simulator could be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, but the court also ruled that the technology could be lawful if the request met a probable‑cause standard.

Critics argue that the threshold for a warrant is often too low. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has repeatedly pointed out that these devices can collect data from thousands of devices in a wide area, not just the target, creating a sweep of personal information that is difficult to control.

Journalistic implications

While the target of this particular warrant was not a journalist, the request to surveil Georgia Fort illustrates how media professionals can find themselves on the wrong side of a warrant. Journalists routinely rely on the freedom to gather information, a right protected by the First Amendment. The potential for government intrusion raises the risk of self‑censorship, especially when reporters are aware that their communications may be intercepted.

Representatives from the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) said the case highlights a growing trend in which law‑enforcement agencies seek surveillance tools that can bypass traditional privacy safeguards. They call for clearer guidelines that distinguish between legitimate investigative work and overbroad monitoring.

Broader surveillance context

The deployment of cell‑site simulators has expanded rapidly since the 1990s. In 2024 the Department of Justice reported that it had authorized over 1,200 such devices in federal investigations, a figure that has doubled in the last two years. The technology’s ubiquity has spurred bipartisan debate over its use in domestic surveillance, with lawmakers urging tighter controls and transparency.

At the same time, state and local governments have begun to adopt their own versions of the technology, often without the same judicial oversight. In Minnesota, for instance, a county police department requested a warrant for a stingray in a case involving a political campaign, sparking backlash from civil‑rights groups.

Experts in privacy law say that the lack of independent review means the public can be unaware of how much data is captured. In 2025, a federal court ruled that the use of a cell‑site simulator without a court order violated the Fourth Amendment, a decision that prompted several agencies to revise their protocols.

As the debate continues, the case involving Don Lemon’s producer serves as a reminder that the line between national security and individual privacy is increasingly blurred by technology. The next court decision on the warrant’s legality could set a precedent that shapes the future of surveillance and press freedom in the United States.