WASHINGTON -- Police across the country may be intercepting phone calls or text messages to find suspects using a technology tool known as Stingray. But they're refusing to turn over details about its use or heavily censoring files when they do.

Police say Stingray, a suitcase-sized device that pretends it's a cell tower, is useful for catching criminals, but that's about all they'll say.

For example, they won't disclose details about contracts with the device's manufacturer, Harris Corp., insisting they are protecting both police tactics and commercial secrets. The secrecy -- at times imposed by nondisclosure agreements signed by police -- is pitting obligations under private contracts against government transparency laws.

Even in states with strong open records laws, including Florida and Arizona, little is known about police use of Stingray and any rules governing it.

A Stingray device tricks all cellphones in an area into electronically identifying themselves and transmitting data to police rather than the nearest phone company's tower. Because documents about Stingrays are regularly censored, it's not immediately clear what information the devices could capture, such as the contents of phone conversations and text messages or how often they might be used.

In one of the rare court cases involving the device, the FBI acknowledged in 2011 that so-called cell site simulator technology affects innocent users, not just a suspect police are seeking.


Advertisement

Earlier this month, journalist Beau Hodai and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona sued the Tucson Police Department, alleging in court documents that police didn't comply with the state's public-records law because they did not fully disclose Stingray-related records and allowed Harris Corp. to dictate what information could be made public.

Revelations about surveillance programs run by the federal National Security Agency have driven a sustained debate on the balance between privacy and government intrusion.

That debate has extended to state and local governments. News organizations in Pittsburgh, Tallahassee, Fla., Palm Springs and Sacramento and are among those that have been denied records about Stingrays or Stingray-like devices.

In a response to a records request from the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper about Florida's use of cell-tracking technology, the state's top police agency provided a four-page, heavily censored document signed by a police investigator.

The newspaper reported the document referred to guidelines concerning the purchase of items and sought the department's agreement to the "provisions/content of the Non-Disclosure Agreement."

In Sacramento, the local sheriff's office told a TV station it would "be inappropriate for us to comment about any agency that may be using the technology" in light of a Harris nondisclosure agreement.

"I don't see how public agencies can make up an agreement with a private company that breaks state law," said David Cuillier, the director of the University of Arizona's journalism school and a national expert on public-records laws.

"We can't have the commercial sector running our governments for us. These public agencies need to be forthright and transparent."

A representative for Melbourne, Fla.,-based Harris Corp. declined to comment or elaborate on how the company's agreements comport with open records laws.