San Diego police have used a controversial surveillance tool that can locate an individual cell phone by mimicking a cellphone tower at least 30 times since 2011, turning to the powerful device for investigations involving ordinary crimes like burglaries and robberies.

None of the instances shows that the device, a cell site simulator known as a Stingray, was used in cases involving terrorism or national security.

× Stingray helps police swipe data

Instead, records obtained under the Public Records Act from the police department show that the suitcase-sized Stingray — purchased in 2010 for $365,286 of Homeland Security grant funds — has been used to investigate common street crimes, with varying levels of success.


The records show that the Stingray, widely promoted as a powerful surveillance tool that could be used to hunt terrorists, has become integrated into everyday police work. That’s not to say local police have not used the device for terrorism or national security-type investigations.

Scores of documents produced by the city are entirely redacted, a solid block of black from the top of the page to the bottom, and other pages have sections heavily redacted too. Those documents could describe Stingray investigations that are being withheld for investigatory or other legal reasons, but it is impossible to determine.

The San Diego Union-Tribune asked the city for any records that logged or registered when the device was used. In response the city provided hundreds of pages of documents, including emails and memos, and a batch of forms labeled “Cell Phone Tracking Log” and “Cell Site Simulator Worksheet.”

The records, despite the redactions, provide a level of detail into how police have used the device that was not previously known, because its use has long been shrouded in secrecy. Like other agencies around the country that have purchased a Stingray, police are required to sign air-tight non-Disclosure Agreements with the manufacturer, Harris Corporation, and the FBI.


The agreements, disclosed earlier this year in the wake of a lawsuit filed against the city by the First Amendment Coalition, prohibit police from disclosing information about how the device works in search warrants, affidavits or other forums without prior approval from the FBI.

Kelly Aviles, a lawyer for the group who litigated the suit, said she was surprised at first to see that San Diego police had deployed the Stingray for street-level crimes.

This photo taken June 11, 2014 shows a communications tower behind the Tallahassee Police Department in Tallahassee, Fla. The department has used the “Stingray” surveillance device, which masquerades as a cell phone tower, to intercept mobile phone calls. The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned. (AP Photo/Phil Sears) (The Associated Press)

“We thought it would be used in Homeland Security or terrorism types of situations,” she said, “and not for common crimes like they have been using it for. And I think it’s the expectations of most citizens that it’s being used for terrorism type crimes.”


“I think what we’re seeing in San Diego isn’t unique,” she said, judging from information in lawsuits or news reports about how the several dozen other departments around the country that have cell site simulators use the tool “It’s been rarely, if ever, used it seems for terrorism investigations in most places.”

In a statement San Diego police spokesman Lt. Scott Wahl said the city’s use of the Stingray complies with constitutional requirements, and the technology “provides valuable assistance in support of important public safety objectives, such as felony fugitive apprehensions, the rescue of kidnapping victims, and the preservation of life. “

“We take the responsibility of protecting and serving our community very seriously. In today’s modern world, we have to be adaptive to evolving threats in order to provide the highest quality police services.“

The Stingray is a cell site simulator that tricks cell phones into connecting with it, allowing police to pinpoint the location of the phone. But it also connects with all other phones in the targeted area, potentially sucking up the data of people who aren’t suspected of being involved in crimes.


The power of the device has long worried civil liberties advocates, who have fought for greater transparency of when and how the device is used.

It’s hard to tell the outcome of all of the times the Stingray was used by San Diego police — whether an arrest was made or not — but in some cases information on the results was not redacted.

In January San Diego police used it to try to locate a man who was a suspect in a series of vehicle burglaries. He was also wanted for robbery, burglary and making a criminal threat.

Police had been able to get a rough location of the phone using GPS data a different and less powerful surveillance method, but said the Stingray was needed to “narrow the search in order to locate the suspect.” They found the phone at the home of a girlfriend of the suspect, then used the Stingray to follow the woman to see if she would lead them to the suspect, but he was not found, the records say.


It’s unclear if an arrest was ever made. Search warrants for the case remain sealed.

The records also show that the Stingray was used for investigations involving robberies, kidnapping, child abduction, missing persons case, attempted murder and several cases labeled “Fugitive Hunting.”

The department’s Special Investigations Unit and Robbery investigation appear to use the device most often, for as little as 20 minutes and as long as five hours in one instance. In addition to being used in the city of San Diego, the records show it has been activated in Escondido and Chula Vista as well as part of a SDPD case.

StingRay device.


The city had been considering buying a Stingray since mid-2010, and in addition to the initial purchase spent an additional $27,000 training four people on how to use it. Several of the cell phone tracking records are labeled “training” and are from late 2010.

A Dec. 14, 2011 log appears to be one of the first times the device was used. A handwritten note at the top reads “1st ‘real’ mission-- successful’” for an investigation by the gangs unit looking for a fugitive. However, the log notes while the device, presumably the fugitive’s phone, was found, the suspect wasn’t. “Not w/phone” someone had written in the log.

The records show that secrecy was a strong concern.

For example, in the January case, when police were looking for the car burglary suspect, the officer refers to the Stingray as the “special equipment” or “equipment.”


An email exchange in May 2015, when an officer trying to schedule a meeting typed “PEN Software Stingray” in the subject line got the response from a detective, “don’t want to use words in header. Pen register or Nemo.”

“Nemo” appears to be the name the department uses for the device. Three pages of undated, handwritten notes titled “Nemo” written by someone in the department describe use of the device. The notes say it is used “sparingly,” that both the FBI and U.S Marshals have similar devices, and carry the notation “not to discuss or email info regarding equip.”

Aviles said the small number of records is likely because the department was not diligently recording how often it was used. She said it was only in the past couple of years, when civil liberties groups began raising concern about the device and filed lawsuits in some cases, that police began to more regularly record the use, she said.

Those lawsuits, as well as the one First Amendment Coalition filed in San Diego, showed that when police got warrants to use the device, the documents presented to judges did not mention the cell site simulator would be used.


Instead, in San Diego, the warrant sought permission to use a pen register or trap-and-trace devices, both pre-cell phone technologies that are far different than the Stingray’s sweeping power, which critics say is far more invasive than a pen register.

Aviles said that since the lawsuits were filed, judges and others in the criminal justice system have increased awareness that the device might be deployed, and should be asking questions specific to its use.