Bill · S. 2522· Senate(119-S-2522)
Cell-Site Simulator Warrant Act of 2025
- Introduced
- 7/29/2025
- Last activity
- 7/29/2025 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Ron Wyden
- Cosponsors
- - 0 - 1
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Cell-Site Simulator Warrant Act of 2025 aims to regulate the use of cell-site simulators in the United States. It establishes a general prohibition on the use of these devices by individuals, entities, and intelligence community elements targeting U.S. persons. Use by law enforcement is permitted only under specific exceptions, such as through a judicial warrant or in certain emergency situations. The bill mandates strict requirements for warrant applications, including demonstrating that other methods have failed or are too dangerous. It also establishes penalties for unauthorized use and rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. Finally, it requires annual reporting from various Inspectors General to ensure compliance.
Yes· 3 of 6
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?+8
The bill creates a civil cause of action for individuals subjected to unlawful cell-site simulator surveillance.
Does this give people more control over their personal data?+7
The bill provides significant protections against the unregulated tracking of electronic devices through cell-site simulators.
Does this change how police departments operate?+6
The bill mandates strict judicial oversight, limits the duration of surveillance, and requires transparency for law enforcement use of cell-sited simulators.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection against unauthorized surveillance: The bill prohibits the knowing use of cell-site simulators by individuals or entities, which protects people from unregulated tracking (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Strict judicial oversight for law enforcement: Law enforcement must obtain a warrant that proves other investigative methods have failed or are too dangerous before using a simulator (Section 2(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I)).
-
Limits on the scope of surveillance: Warrants must specify a narrow area of effect and time of operation, ensuring the surveillance is not broader than necessary (Section 2(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II-III)).
-
Protection of emergency communications: The bill requires agencies to disclose potential disruptions to emergency services like 9-1-1 or suicide prevention hotlines when applying for a warrant (Section 2(d)(1)(C)(i)).
-
Right to legal recourse: Any person subjected to an unlawful operation of a cell-site simulator can bring a civil action for relief, including actual and statutory damages (Section 2(i)).
-
Ensuring transparency through reporting: Inspectors General are required to submit annual reports to Congress regarding the use of these devices, which helps maintain public accountability (Section 2(d)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial penalties for violations: Individuals or entities that violate the prohibition on using cell-site simulators can be fined up to $250,000 (Section 2(b)).
-
Restrictions on emergency response: While there are exceptions for emergencies involving immediate danger or organized crime, law enforcement must apply for a warrant within 48 hours after use begins (Section 2(d)(1)(B)(i)(II)(bb)).
-
Potential loss of evidence: Information or evidence obtained through a cell-site simulator in violation of the act may be prohibited from being used in trials, hearings, or other proceedings (Section 2(c)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Privacy Rights+8Improves Government Transparency+5
- Education And Technology
- Improves Data Privacy+7
- Social Issues And Justice
- Improves Policing Reform+6
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For People With Disabilities+2
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Improves Cybersecurity Defense+2
- 7/29/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Steve DainesRepublican · Montana