Stingray cell-site simulators

What it does

A cell-site simulator, sold under names including Stingray, pretends to be a cell tower. Phones in range reveal identifiers such as the IMSI. The device can be used to find a phone or to list phones nearby. It is not a request to the phone company for stored records. Current use is not established.

Privacy watchdog concerns

• Electronic Frontier Foundation. Cell-Site Simulators (IMSI Catchers). EFF says a cell-site simulator pretends to be a cell tower and collects identifiers from phones in range. EFF calls that a general search and says some devices have been flown on aircraft. This is EFF’s claim about the device type. It does not establish current use by any Nevada agency.

Constitutional issues

Unresolved question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Stingray cell-site simulators: The 2013 acquisition is a historical report. Current use is not established. The report is not proof of warrantless use. Lambis and Andrews are persuasive only. Carpenter does not decide a simulator.

• United States v. Lambis, 197 F. Supp. 3d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). No source link was supplied for this citation.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. A New York federal district court suppressed evidence involving warrantless simulator use. Not binding in Nevada. No source link was supplied.
• State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350 (2016). No source link was supplied for this citation.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. Maryland appellate cell-site simulator decision, as identified in the source prompt for this page. Persuasive only. No source link was supplied, and no holding is restated beyond that.
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). Does not decide this technology. United States Supreme Court. Carpenter decided historical cell-site location information from a carrier, not a cell-site simulator.
• United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). Analogical constitutional argument. United States Supreme Court. Karo addressed monitoring that reveals information inside a residence. A simulator that reveals presence inside a home would raise that analogy. No such Nevada fact is in this build.

Statutes attached to read, not findings.

• NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
• Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Nevada use

LVMPD, 2013, as reported. Current use is not established. The cited document was not re-read. The article does not say the acquisition was warrantless.

Historical LVMPD procurement report only. Current use is not established. This is not the Fog contract and not a second IMSI-catcher purchase.

See also: IMSI catchers; Airborne IMSI catchers (dirtboxes)

Next record

Stingray cell-site simulators: Re-read the 2013 document the article cites, then request the current policy. Do not describe present operations from the article alone.

Sources

• Nevada police may be tracking your phone’s location without a warrant · The Nevada Independent · 2026-04-10
• Document the Nevada Independent cites for a 2013 LVMPD cell-site simulator acquisition · DocumentCloud · 2013

All devices. A document workflow for this page is not built. The arrest correction form is not a surveillance-document inbox. Corrections and source documents for this page follow the corrections policy. Corrections policy.