The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department (SCSD) announced a new cell-site-simulator policy earlier this week , saying that it would seek "judicial authorization" when deploying the devices, which are also known as stingrays.

In a press release, the largest law enforcement agency in California's state capital region touted that it was the "first law enforcement agency in the country" to release such a policy.

The new policy comes just days after the SCSD admitted for the first time in a court filing that it had used its stingray without any judicial authorization. The SCSD also published and distributed its non-disclosure agreement with the FBI.

The SCSD did not respond to Ars' request for comment, nor did it when Ars wrote about the agency's secrecy in June 2015, when we reported the agency had used the device over 500 times previously.

In a videotaped press conference, Sheriff Scott Jones said, "I am extremely confident that we balance the rights and privacy interests of citizens with our need to protect citizens, find bad guys and potential missing or kidnapped persons."

Despite the SCSD claim, its new policy comes nearly two weeks after the Department of Justice (DOJ) imposed a warrant requirement for stingray use by its agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), among others. To be clear, the DOJ requirement has no bearing on policies of other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies.

Plus, the new SCSD policy comes months after the state of Washington imposed a warrant requirement when such devices are used by state law enforcement departments. A few other states, including Utah and Virginia, also have a similar mandate, requiring police to go to a judge with a probable cause-driven warrant to be able to use their stingrays.

Simply seeking a judge's approval is a far lesser standard than an authorized Fourth Amendment search, which requires a probable cause showing in a warrant application that evidence of a crime will likely be found.

Not only can stingrays be used to determine location by spoofing a cell tower, but they can also be used to intercept calls and text messages. Once deployed, the devices intercept data from a target phone as well as information from other phones within the vicinity. For years, federal and local law enforcement have tried to keep their existence a secret while simultaneously upgrading their capabilities, including in Sacramento County.

Over the last year, as the devices have come under increased scrutiny, new information about the secretive devices has come to light. Ars has previously reported that while stingrays have been used at the local level for serious violent crimes, they have also been used to investigate ATM robberies and 911 hangups.

In 2015, federal authorities have shown a willingness to open up a little about the technology, although the FBI declared in January that it has a right to use the devices in public without a warrant.

Come back with a warrant?

The new SCSD policy does not fully explain exactly what information will be in the authorization application. Worse still, it imposes an automatic sealing of such applications, making it impossible for the public to know whether the SCSD is following its own rules, even after such cases have concluded.

As it states:

The request for judicial authorization shall include: a. An advisement that the RF Equipment will send signals to all cellular devices within range which will cause the devices to emit unique identifiers. b. An advisement when the intent is to determine unique identifiers at multiple locations and/or multiple times. c. An advisement that all data collected during use of the RF Equipment will be deleted at the conclusion of the use.

The policy also allows the agency to use the device in exigent circumstances— a situation Ars detailed recently

While this policy is a step in the right direction, it's woefully insufficient, many legal experts note.

"The policy refers to ‘judicial authorization' and ‘ordered by a court.' These are ambiguous terms in that they don't make clear whether the form of authorization is a subpoena or a warrant, which are issued according to significantly different standards and subject to very different protections," Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, told Ars.

"On the other hand, the policy does make clear that, except in ‘exigent circumstances,' a stingray cannot be used without the involvement of a court, and from the perspective of protecting civil liberties and ensuring effective oversight of police surveillance, that is a very positive step."

In a recent blog post , Linda Lye, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, agreed.

"Because stingrays are indiscriminate, highly intrusive devices that obtain information from innocent third parties, and not just the target of an investigation, there is a serious question whether they can ever be used consistent with the Fourth Amendment," she wrote.

In March 2015, Lye and her colleagues sued the SCSD for non-compliance with the California Public Records Act. They had filed a similar public records request and received equally inadequate results regarding stingray use. Neither party has yet made oral arguments before a judge.

The ACLU also has a similar case pending against the Anaheim Police Department, while the California First Amendment Coalition has a related case pending against the San Diego Police Department.

"But at a minimum, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for their use because stingrays can pinpoint cell phone users' location, even when they are inside their homes or other private spaces," Lye added. "The policy should require the Sheriff to obtain warrants, in other words, to demonstrate to a court probable cause to believe that a suspect has engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Obtaining some unspecified ‘judicial authorization' based on weak information isn't enough."

UPDATE Monday 7:47pm ET: Peter Cress, a legal advisor to the SCSD, e-mailed Ars: