Is there a device or method to call 911 even if cell phone jammers are being used in the area?

In the past, my abuser would use a cell phone jammer when he broke into my house, preventing me from calling the police right away. I tried to call 911, but the call never went through.

I eventually reported him to the police. I'm worried he'll show up again. How do I make sure I can call 911 no matter what? Will a wearable panic button still work with a cell phone jammer? What about a satellite communicator for hiking/backpacking?

Realistically, the FCC will only start investigating once the problem is frequently reported because they don't have staff around the country to do this kind of signals intelligence. If the OP lived in or near a major city, they would have more success because the FCC offices in major cities do have equipment to locate pirate signals and jammers, but again, I don't think they would respond to any single incident because they would never be able to get there in time to get the information.

There's a guy in my area who puts a jammer in his car every day when he drives on a busy interstate during rush hour because he thinks it will stop people from using their phones and make his driving safer. All the cell phone carriers reported it, but it took the FCC 3 years to actually investigate and catch him.

In areas with cell phone signal jammers, it can be very difficult to call 911 because the main function of a signal jammer is to block the network signal of the mobile phone.

However, there are several strategies and techniques that may help when calling 911 in an emergency:

1. Landline Phone: Using a traditional landline phone will not be affected by cell phone signal jammers and can directly dial 911. Although landline phones are not widely available, they may be available in some buildings (such as hotels or office buildings).
2. 
   Satellite Phone: Satellite phones do not rely on traditional cellular networks and are therefore not affected by ground-based signal jammers. These devices can connect to satellites in extreme environments to send emergency messages. However, satellite phones are more expensive and require direct access to the sky, so they may not work well inside buildings.
3. 
   Wi-Fi Network Calling: If the Wi-Fi network in the area is not interfered with, using Wi-Fi calling features (such as some smartphones and VoIP apps) may be able to bypass interference and dial 911.

A drone jammer (also known as a drone jammer gun) is a device used to bring drones to the ground.

It works by interfering with the radio signals that control drones, grounding drones by blocking their communication systems.

But with the increase in the number of drones in the air, there is now a big challenge - how to keep drones away from no-fly zones?

The FAA has been working hard to ensure that drone pilots and the general public adapt to the evolutionary stage we are currently experiencing.

However, despite the best efforts, the process of drones entering commercial airspace has not been smooth sailing, and drone incidents seem to be happening more and more frequently at sporting events, airports and other places.

How does a drone jammer work?

Drone jammers work by sending electromagnetic noise at radio frequencies, with the goal of covering the same radio and GPS signals that drones use when operating.

The frequencies of drone wifi jammers are usually specified as 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz, which are public frequencies not allocated to manned aircraft, public broadcasts or mobile phone signals.

When a drone is jammed with a jammer signal, the most common reaction is for the drone to return to its point of origin (unless the GPS is also jammed), which gives the jammer operator the option to track the drone and find the pilot. In some cases, a drone jammer may cause the drone to land on the scene so that an investigation can be conducted.

Types of Drone Jammers

Drone jammers come in many forms, each designed to meet specific needs and environments. Understanding the different types of drone jammers is essential to choosing the right jammer for your security needs.

Portable Jammers

Features. Portable drone jammers are compact and easy to carry, making them ideal for personal use or rapid deployment in the field. They typically have limited range, but are sufficient to jam a drone's communications at close range.

Availability. These jammers are easy to use and usually operate with the push of a button. They are favored by security personnel and individuals who need a quick solution to prevent drone intrusion during events or in sensitive areas.

Fixed Jammers

Features. Fixed jammers are more rugged, have higher output power, and can cover larger areas. They are permanently installed in key locations such as government buildings, airports, and prisons.

Effectiveness. Fixed jammers provide a persistent and reliable barrier against drone intrusions due to their fixed location and enhanced capabilities. They can jam multiple frequencies simultaneously, ensuring broader protection.

Tactical Jammers

Features. Designed for military and law enforcement use, tactical jammers are rugged and built to withstand a variety of environments. They often have advanced targeting capabilities to selectively jam specific drones without affecting other communications.

Used in Military and Law Enforcement. Tactical jammers play a vital role in national defense strategy, protecting troops from drone surveillance or attack. They are also used in critical operations to ensure drones do not compromise mission security.

While this may appear to be a highly significant question, the response is relatively straightforward and differs from one nation to another.

In summary, the majority of countries prohibit the use of cell phone jammers, whereas in certain nations, there are no explicit regulations or governmental declarations regarding their legality.

Let us examine several prominent nations that restrict the use of cell phone signal jammers by the general public, allowing such devices solely for military purposes.

Are Cell Phone Signal Jammers Illegal in the United States?

In the United States, the act of jamming cell phone signals is prohibited and classified as property theft under the Communications Act of 1934. For those interested in further details, please follow this link: Communications Act.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) categorically forbids the use of any jamming devices that disrupt authorized radio communications, including cellular frequencies, PCS, GPS, and police radar systems.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has stated that cell phone signal jammers can obstruct access to emergency services, including 911, thereby representing a significant risk to public safety. Operating a cell phone signal jammer is prohibited under federal law, with no exceptions granted. This prohibition applies universally, affecting businesses, educational institutions, and other private sector entities.

It is prohibited for consumers to utilize cell phone jammers within their residences. Local law enforcement agencies may obtain exceptions, but only with stringent authorization from federal law enforcement authorities. In the United States, the deployment of cell phone jammers can incur substantial penalties, potentially amounting to thousands of dollars.

A notorious case involves an individual in Florida who faced substantial fines for employing a cell phone jammer on public transport, driven by his frustration and a desire to disrupt the communication signals of fellow passengers.

The ownership and operation of a cell phone jammer may result in imprisonment. Although this is a significant issue, utilizing such a device within the confines of your own residence or vehicle should generally ensure your safety.

So what about other countries?

Most countries follow the same rule: fines and criminal sanctions for those who break the law on using cell phone jammers.

Australia

The ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) has made it clear that it is illegal to use, supply or possess a mobile phone or GPS jammer or booster in Australia.

The use, supply or possession of mobile phone jammers is prohibited because it "facilitates criminal and terrorist activity". This is the best they have come up with.

India

Unlike other major countries, India has specific regulations that private sector organizations or individuals cannot procure or use such devices in India.

The Cabinet Secretariat published a "jammer policy" on its website stating that norms have been framed for the procurement and use of jammers by states/union territories, defense forces and police.

Under the Telecommunication and Data Protection Act, 1992, mobile signal jammers are controlled items and can only be imported into India with a license issued by the DGFT.

The policy says the move is to "prevent the indiscriminate proliferation of jammers and ensure that mobile jammers installed do not cause excessive or unintentional interference to the existing mobile phone network."

UK

Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, anyone who intentionally interferes with wireless telegraphy (e.g. radio communications) commits an offence.

If convicted, you could be sentenced to up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

OfCom warns that consumers are strongly advised not to operate devices that interfere with radio communications as they could "cause you to miss calls and, in the worst case, they could pave the way for criminal conduct or even endanger someone's life".

Canada

Under the Radio Communications Act, it is illegal to import, manufacture, sell, possess and use jamming devices that interfere with cellular frequencies in Canada.

You could face up to a year in prison or a fine of up to $5,000. According to a statement on ic.gc.ca, only law enforcement agencies are allowed to import radio equipment that interferes with radio communications.

A report issued by the Justice Department has revealed a new approach to mitigating criminal activities in prisons: the successful implementation of a signal jammers that obstructed mobile signals from illicitly introduced phones in a Maryland correctional facility.

The announcement disseminated swiftly across various prisons. For Brian Sterling, who oversees the South Carolina Department of Prisons, this news confirmed his stance that jamming technology is the most cost-effective and impactful method to prevent the entry of phones into correctional institutions.

A cell phone jammers is a small and cost-effective apparatus that generates a continuous tone directed at an antenna, which effectively hinders any mobile phone from making or receiving calls. Generally, these jamming devices are inexpensive, with various models available online, ranging in price from $119 to $650.

For an extended period, prison officials have maintained that inmates are resourceful in their attempts to introduce phones into correctional institutions. In South Carolina, Sterling observed that couriers would navigate through forested regions, tossing backpacks containing contraband over the prison walls; furthermore, drones would monitor prison yards, releasing phones to inmates when guards were not present.

We require a comprehensive set of tools to effectively confront this challenge.

Sterling has implemented 50-foot nets around his facility, eliminated trees to hinder the escape of drones after they have been deployed, installed sophisticated metal detectors, and collaborated with the Justice Department in numerous prosecutions of staff members for the illegal transportation of cell phones.

In a phone interview, Sterling stated, "We are in a state of war. It is essential that we utilize all necessary tools to confront this challenge."

The pivotal moment for Sterling was marked by the shooting of one of his correctional officers. On March 5, 2010, Captain Robert Johnson was at his home in Sumter, South Carolina, when a gunman invaded the premises and shot him six times at close range with a .38-caliber revolver. The assailant, Robert Odell Brown, 33, was killed in February during a violent altercation among inmates at the Lee County Correctional Facility in Bishopville, South Carolina.

The incident was coordinated by the Lee County Correctional Facility through the use of a cell phone. Following this event, Sterling has been focused on introducing jammers into correctional facilities.

Another viable solution to jamming is the implementation of small box antennas, which are cost-effective at roughly $400 and can adequately cover a block with about 10 units. The boxes require interconnection, but once the system is operational, all phones will seamlessly connect to these antennas, ensuring that signals do not escape the designated area. Levitan noted that this strategy can effectively block calls without the need for the forceful measures associated with jamming technology, as long as the facility maintains oversight of the equipment.

According to the findings, the operational costs of a controlled access system compared to jamming are minimal, and controlled access is identified as a more flexible method for restricting cell phone use. The installation of jamming systems in correctional institutions necessitates a precision-based approach, which is significantly more costly.

A representative from Tennessee is advocating for a ban on the use of illegal cell phones by inmates, citing concerns that these devices facilitate the planning of attacks, the management of drug rings, and the coordination of criminal activities.

In the forthcoming congressional session, Representative David Kustoff (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill aimed at authorizing the deployment of cell phone jamming technology in state correctional facilities.

While cell phone jammer are able to interfere with cell phone signals, their deployment has been outlawed in state prisons as a result of the 1934 federal Communications Act, which was established long before the invention of cell phones.

During the introduction of similar legislation last year, Rep. Kustoff informed fellow members of Congress, "This technology will serve to protect inmates, correctional officers, and the broader public." He added, "State attorneys general throughout the nation have recognized that contraband cell phones in prisons represent one of the most critical public safety challenges currently faced by prison administrators."

Experts in the correctional field assert that inmates throughout the country have leveraged contraband cell phones to perpetrate serious crimes while serving their sentences. As an illustration, Kustoff noted that in Tennessee, an inmate used a cell phone to arrange a drug deal, which involved mailing a bag of meth to his girlfriend.

During a meeting on Wednesday, State Senator Jackson conveyed to lawmakers and Tennessee Department of Corrections Director Frank Strada that Representative Kustoff is seeking to determine the interest in the bill from the state's prison leadership. Strada affirmed his strong endorsement of the proposal.

According to Strada, "The act of jamming a cell phone will ultimately transform it into a non-functional device, similar to a brick, within a prison setting. I believe I reflect the sentiments of many correctional officers, whether state, federal, or local, who consider jamming to be an invaluable tool in our prisons."

Over time, state lawmakers have implemented legislation to address the issue of prohibited cell phones in correctional institutions. A significant bill was presented in 2021 by former Senator Paul Ross (R-Kingston) and former Representative Brandon Ogles (R-Franklin), which sought to designate the possession of a cell phone by an inmate as a Class E felony.

Representative Kustoff is set to introduce legislation concerning cell phone jamming in the forthcoming congressional session. He has communicated to state lawmakers that other Tennessee congressional representatives have expressed their support for the bill. Kustoff has a history of backing similar initiatives, the latest of which was proposed last year, but unfortunately, it did not advance out of committee.

A suspect, believed to be involved in a series of burglaries in Queens, New York, was recorded by a home security camera as he attempted to employ a Wi-Fi jammer to interfere with the signal of a Wi-Fi-enabled security camera. However, the signal was successfully restored, enabling the camera to capture footage of the individual.

The alleged perpetrator would intrude into homes in broad daylight, stealing valuable items including cash, jewelry, and luxury goods, while ransacking the premises. It was not clear whether the authorities suspected a lone individual or a group of individuals potentially acting in concert during these criminal activities.

ABC 7 NY has reported that the homeowners are generally away from their residences when the suspect makes his entrance, suggesting a pattern that aligns with their exit. Since July 24, law enforcement in New York has noted that at least five properties have been targeted in this manner.

The home of Imran Ahmed, located in Queens Village, was subjected to one of the break-ins.

During a recent home invasion, surveillance video from a Wi-Fi-enabled security camera was not successfully blocked at certain intervals. The footage revealed a disconcerting scene featuring a man, shrouded in multiple cloth items, moving stealthily across the floor. He was observed pushing a backpack along with a black box, which is believed to be a Wi-Fi signal jammers. Despite his efforts, the plan was ineffective, as the camera continued to capture his presence during some moments of the intrusion.

According to Ahmed, an alert was received around 2:30 informing them that their Wi-Fi had gone offline. He stated that at first, he "didn't consider it significant."

The video depicts a man climbing the stairs, and as he returns to the ground level, he articulates a statement that appears to be, "Tony, Tony, Tony, Tony."

Ahmed stated that they were just two blocks from the police precinct. He conveyed that the occurrence of such an incident is extremely alarming.

Among the properties being examined by law enforcement, one was reported to have $30,000 in jewelry stolen, along with a Louis Vuitton handbag valued at $8,000.

What do you need to know about the growing crime of electronic devices – ‘key jammers’ – that prevent cars from locking?

Transmitters of this nature can be conveniently acquired online and serve to interfere with the signal emitted by the key fob. Consequently, negligent drivers may assume their car is protected, although it is actually vulnerable.

This situation allows for the possibility of thieves to appropriate your belongings or even your automobile.

A relatively low-powered signal jammers can have a range of up to around 75 meters, indicating that a significant area, such as a complete car park, can be influenced at the same time.

Nevertheless, offenders utilizing wifi blocker can launch their attacks in a wide range of settings, extending beyond merely public car parks.

As I got out of bed to prepare for my workday, I ventured outside and noticed that every car door was securely shut.

It was a startling revelation when I realized I had secured the car, particularly as I was at my boyfriend's home and had left my Christmas presents within. Upon inspecting the interior, we were horrified to see that the entire car had been overturned and all valuable items had been stolen.

At first, the police indicated that they were unable to assist. They refused to send an officer to investigate for fingerprints due to the lack of evident signs of forced entry. Nevertheless, when I reached out to my bank to cancel my card, I learned that the thief had been actively using my contactless card. This information led the police to engage more thoroughly with the situation.

They are currently examining the CCTV recordings in the hopes of apprehending the suspects.

How can you make sure your car is secure?

To confirm with certainty that a car is secured, one must conduct a manual check. Numerous vehicles provide supplementary signals indicating that the locks are engaged, such as blinking lights, mirrors that fold in, or a quick honk of the horn.

Should you be near the automobile, you might also detect the audible click of the central locking system securing itself.、

Deputy Chief Superintendent Jukes stated that individuals need to be watchful regarding electronic breaches such as this.

We encourage individuals to be attentive to their vehicles and possessions in order to minimize opportunities for criminal behavior. This entails verifying that the vehicle is properly locked and taking any valuable items with them when exiting the vehicle.

A sophisticated approach to ensuring the safety of your vehicle may include investing in a car jam detector, which is designed to trigger an alarm when it identifies a jam.

Will insurance companies cover such thefts?

Ms. Dover pointed out a significant challenge for victims; they not only lose their personal items but also have no way to prove that they inadvertently left the car unlocked. Most insurance companies typically do not provide coverage for theft in cases where the vehicle is left unattended and unsecured.

As stated by the Financial Ombudsman, a significant number of insurers exclude theft coverage if the vehicle is left unattended and not locked.

To establish that a car lock is indeed jammed, one must capture the thief, although a consistent pattern of thefts may provide substantial evidence.

An investigation has been initiated by Thames Valley Police regarding 14 recent thefts of lorries, vans, and cars, where there were “no obvious signs of break-in” present.

In the last fortnight of November, multiple theft incidents were reported at service stations situated on the M4 motorway in Berkshire.

Sandra: My mother recently neglected to place her current insurance card in the vehicle, and she is apprehensive about driving without it. I initially believed she did not possess it, but I was uncertain whether she would be violating the law if she was unable to present it. Is it against the law to drive with an expired insurance card?

Law enforcement officials now require individuals to present a valid insurance card, which may be displayed either on a mobile device or as a photograph of the card. In instances where a parent’s insurance card has expired, many police departments have access to the state insurance database, allowing them to quickly verify the validity of a vehicle's insurance. If the police can confirm that the insurance is valid through this system, there should be no need to issue a citation.

Ty: Given that owning a radar detector is permitted in Texas, are there any devices that are prohibited from being used alongside a vehicle's radar detector?

In Texas, radar jammers and laser jammer are classified as illegal devices. According to the Texas Traffic Code, it is prohibited for any individual to use, attempt to use, install, or operate a radar jammer in a motor vehicle, except when a law enforcement officer is executing their official duties. Therefore, if one possesses a radar jammer in Texas, it is advisable to store it on a shelf at home alongside your favorite book. Furthermore, the purchase of radar jammers is not permitted in Texas, as the statute explicitly states that no individual may buy, sell, or offer for sale such devices. These signal jammers primarily serve those who engage in excessive speeding. It is important for drivers to understand that these devices may not function as claimed. Adhering to the law would undoubtedly simplify matters.

I offer my daily prayers for the safety of all law enforcement officers. I recognize the inherent risks associated with your profession, as you diligently work to ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens, not only within your immediate community but across the entire state of Texas. I encounter parking challenges on my street on a daily basis. Recently, while attempting to reverse out of my driveway, I found a vehicle parked directly behind my driveway, across the street. I have previously discussed parking concerns with my neighbor. I wish to avoid causing any inconvenience to others by parking inappropriately. What steps should I take? What constitutes a violation in this situation?

Parking challenges have persisted, and it is essential to address your concerns, as well as those of others facing similar issues. It is important to note that your neighbor acted within their rights by parking their vehicle on the opposite side of the street, behind your driveway. While I empathize with the stress involved in maneuvering out of a driveway, the law does not impose any specific parking requirements on drivers. It would be beneficial for you to maintain open communication with your neighbors, expressing your preference for them not to park in that location to avoid potential damage to their vehicles. Additionally, be aware that if you were to collide with a parked vehicle while reversing, you could be held liable for unsafe backing. Therefore, if you find it unsafe to back up, it is advisable to refrain from doing so.

Might the strategy of integrating phones into a unified distributed antenna system serve as a means to mitigate the impacts of Russian electronic warfare?

According to an American firm involved in creating a system in Ukraine, networked mobile phones utilizing specific software may provide a cost-effective and straightforward solution to counter the sophisticated electronic warfare tactics employed by Russia.

The electronic warfare strategies employed by Russia, such as signal jamming and GPS spoofing, create substantial obstacles for Ukrainian military operations, particularly in the deployment of drones and high-tech U.S. weaponry. Identifying and locating adversarial jamming systems generally requires advanced software-defined radios, a type of equipment that is accessible to the United States and other well-resourced military organizations. However, smaller forces like Ukraine's encounter difficulties in acquiring these critical assets in adequate numbers due to financial constraints.

Should a cost-effective system be created to identify enemy jamming technology, it could enable Ukrainian operators to reclaim a measure of superiority against their more formidable opponents. Additionally, this advancement might alter the strategies that cellphone network providers adopt to fortify their devices against complex threats.

In the vicinity of Christmas last year, the Ukrainian military reached out to Sean Gorman and his team at Zephr, a company dedicated to fortifying devices against GPS-signal interference. Zephr quickly sent six Android Pixel phones preloaded with their software to Ukraine, and in April, they initiated field tests close to the frontlines in Donetsk.

According to Gorman's statement to Defense One, the phones were secured to drones, installed in cars, and positioned on fixed stands. Furthermore, they have been conducting controlled experiments employing their own signal jammers to accurately determine the location.

The initial aim was to investigate if conventional consumer mobile phones, functioning collaboratively in a network, could uncover the presence of an entity engaged in jamming GPS location information. The findings indicated that by comparing the GPS signals received by different phones, it was possible to detect instances when one or more devices were being targeted.

According to Gorman, "Our approach fundamentally involves leveraging the sensors integrated into the phone. The primary sensor of value is the raw data provided by the global navigation satellite system (GNSS). This encompasses automatic gain control (AGC), Doppler readings, carrier phase, code phase, along with additional information that mobile phones collect about their distances from satellites, cellular towers, and other network components."

These sensors are integrated into smartphones by manufacturers to enable the devices to optimize their performance, including identifying the closest cell tower. The data gathered from these sensors is essential for the GPS-processing software that allows phones to accurately inform users of their location. Analyzing data from various smartphones can help detect which devices are under potential attack.

According to Gorman, the integration of computational AI in our backend, along with the sophisticated processing of signals and software, enables us to achieve much more. Instead of merely relying on sensors or expensive antenna arrays, there is substantial opportunity to network phones together, effectively creating a large distributed antenna system.

The assessments further disclosed novel understandings of Russian electronic warfare.

In the Baltic Sea, Russia is interfering with GPS signals, which causes receivers to show erroneous location data. NATO representatives have labeled this situation as dangerous for civilian aircraft. A widely employed strategy to combat drones includes the spoofing of GPS signals, tricking the drone into believing it is situated above an airport, thereby forcing it to either land or exit restricted airspace.

Ukrainian soldiers stationed on the frontlines in Donetsk often describe experiencing spoofing attacks directed at their drones. Nevertheless, Gorman and his team have identified that much of this reported "spoofing" is actually high-powered jamming. These jamming actions occur within the same frequency bands as GPS or GNSS, which causes them to resemble satellite signals. As a result, they generate phantom or ghost satellites in areas where such signals should not be possible, including beneath the horizon.

In a detailed analysis provided to Defense One, Gorman noted that the noise in question does not match the typical profile of a GNSS signal, yet it contains energy at the frequencies targeted by the receiver for satellite signals. The receiver's signal-processing algorithms rely on correlation techniques to identify and track these signals. When a significant jamming signal is present, it can lead to false correlations, causing the receiver to mistakenly perceive that it is detecting satellites that are not actually visible.

Operating under a contract with the Ukrainian government, the group is striving to enhance their research efforts to not only identify cell phone jammer but also to determine their precise locations, enabling strategies for avoidance or elimination.

In an email, Gorman explained that the new methodologies under development aim to estimate the location of signals of interest using three key inputs: 1. localization by range based on power; 2. localization by area of effect; and 3. triangulation of jammers through angle of arrival. Each smartphone will capture the interference signal, document the last known position, and timestamp the reception, creating data points across the network. The system will then aggregate and process these signals centrally to triangulate the jammer's location.

The U.S. armed forces are dedicating considerable resources to the development of alternatives to GPS, typically termed alternative position, navigation, and timing (Alt PNT), to aid various users, including individuals and drones, in accurately identifying their locations. Nonetheless, many of these investments have not demonstrated a favorable return on investment.

According to Gorman, the entire process is contingent upon having an initial known position, which is exceedingly difficult to establish without GPS technology.

The networked methodology will not serve as a substitute for other, pricier military systems intended for the detection and identification of jammers. Nevertheless, it provides a swift and economical solution for armed forces like Ukraine and other organizations that could be impacted by jamming, such as first responders. While it will not eliminate the need for alternative position, navigation, and timing solutions, it may improve their overall efficacy.

According to Gorman, it is possible that a fundamentally different approach could be adopted. Instead of directing all resources towards Alt PNT and GNSS resilience, which are certainly advantageous, we should investigate how this scenario has materialized. He pointed out the necessity of accurately mapping and understanding the area concerning the emitters, allowing us to circumvent those locations and eradicate the emitters.

Up until June, Vanderburgh County Sheriff Noah Robinson had not recognized the extent of chaos that signal jammers could inflict on law enforcement operations.

This was the time when his office identified one situated in the trunk of a car.

Robinson reported to an interim legislative committee last week that the office had received a call concerning a burglary in progress. The staff employed the subdivision's camera systems to track down a vehicle linked to the alleged burglars.

Robinson stated that when the officer conducted the traffic stop, the radio and computer in the vehicle became inoperative.

Signal jammers are capable of interfering with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, and other communication systems, which can hinder the functionality of devices like mobile phones, Ring doorbells, and wireless security alarms. Robinson noted that the wifi jammers found by his office has a range of one mile.

He presented his remarks to an interim panel concentrating on the criminal code, requesting that the legislator-dominated assembly evaluate the possibility of enacting a new law to prohibit the importation and multiple uses of the devices.

Robinson indicated that further exploration is not required to understand that this has various implications, particularly in relation to terrorism.

He outlined potential situations where nefarious actors might interrupt medical devices in hospitals, disrupt police communications through surveillance towers, access the mobile phones of ordinary citizens via cellular towers, and influence traffic patterns regulated by wireless traffic signals.

At the federal level, signal jammers are deemed illegal. The Federal Communications Commission explicitly prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of any device that interferes with authorized radio communications.

According to Representative Matt Pierce, who represents Bloomington as a Democrat, prisons are not permitted to utilize signal jammers to resolve their challenges with contraband cell phones.

Senator Lonnie Randolph of East Chicago questioned the necessity for Indiana lawmakers to explore alterations given that these devices are already banned on a federal basis.

According to Robinson, Indiana officers do not possess "immediate" authority to enforce the law as there is no state statute that provides for such power.

Wendy McNamara, the representative who heads the interim panel and the House’s Courts and Criminal Code committee, remarked that she felt Robinson’s office was fortunate, noting that the circumstances "could have been much worse."

Nevertheless, she pointed out that the legislative measures related to the technology might not advance in the near term.

In a statement to the press, McNamara expressed that, in all honesty, there is no formalized approach at this time for managing the problem of signal jammers.