Perhaps the most controversial method of prevention currently being considered is to jam cell signals. Cell phone jammers block cellular signals by preventing the cellular signal from reaching local microcells that process and complete cell calls. No connection with the local cell tower means there is no communication path. Many in corrections, including the American Correctional Association, believe that cell phone jammers are the most effective way to completely remove the risk of cell-phone use in correctional facilities. However, deploying cell jamming technologies is currently an uphill battle with the main argument being one of unintended communication interference or "leakage."

A private Miami-based company, Cell-Antenna, has been at the forefront of the jamming advocacy promoting the availability of jamming equipment to state and local law enforcement. Cell-Antenna asserts that their cell-signal blocking technology is highly localized and that it will not interfere with emergency or public safety communications outside the prisons’ walls. They further state that the technology also distinguishes between two-way and cell signals, so there is no obstruction with correctional officers’ two-way radio signals. They claim their technology has successfully been tested in Europe and other countries.

Arrayed against them is the cell phone industry which opposes any attempt to jam its cell phone signals. The Cellular and Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) represents all sectors of wireless communications and stands strong against cell phone jamming. Their position is based, primarily, on the belief that current jamming technology cannot be confined to a predestinated geographic area and as such may accidently block legitimate users. They believe this could cause unintended consequences; some of which could be lethal.

Currently, except for specific and rare circumstances, cell phone jamming is considered illegal in the U.S. under the Telecommunications Act, which is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Originally established in 1934, the Communications Act was created "to provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes." The Act could not have foreseen cell phones, but because cell signals are a form of radio signal, it is widely agreed that the Act does cover them.

In 1996 when Congress deregulated the Telecommunications Industry, the issue resurfaced within the context of the new law which allowed anyone to enter any communications business with the language intending – "to let any communications business compete in any market against any other." This act has been interpreted to include cell phones, but it does not specifically address this issue.

What is clear is that any changes to cell phone jamming legislation must go through the FCC. The American Correctional Association has taken a position that supports the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or a Governor (depending on whether a facility is federal or state-operated) may submit a petition to the FCC requesting a permit to operate a wireless jamming device in a particular correctional facility. To date, it has not been a smooth process, but sometimes exceptions are made in the way of a forbearance which will allow a cell phone jamming company to install its equipment.

Results to date of these petition requests have been less than successful. As an example, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Washington D.C. Corrections Department have had to cancel demonstrations by CellAntenna at the last minute due to either threat of or actual lawsuits filed by CTIA. Both CellAntenna and CTIA have presented petitions to the FCC before seeking rule changes. It remains to be seen who will prevail. It took over sixty years for changes to been made to the Telecommunications Act of 1934.

There is much to consider with respect to jamming of cell phone signals. Will cell phone jammers deter inmates from using cell phones or will inmates just find another way around the jamming? Jammers also require little or no interaction from staff – once the jammer is set it can be pretty much forgotten about. However, some correctional facilities use cell phones with their staff, so jammers would interfere in their communication especially if it is true that cell jamming affects other radio signals that might be in use by corrections staff.

For more information on the FCC, go to: www.fcc.gov; for CellAntenna, go to: http://www.cellantenna.com; and for the CTIA, go to: www.ctia.org.

More and more specialized cell-phone-detection products and systems are emerging to try and offset this influx of cell phones in prisons, at least until the cell jamming issue is settled. Many corrections departments are utilizing metal detectors, X-ray machines, and visitor inspections to prevent phones from getting smuggled into prisons.

One of the biggest issues with cell-phone detection in prisons is the perception that compared to drug and other contraband smuggling, cell phones are not as high of a priority. Additionally, cell-phone detection is often done with hand-held devices which is not entirely effective because inmates tend to know a sweep is coming which often defeats the purpose.

In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Prisons asked EDO Corp., a company that mostly does classified work for the Defense Department and intelligence agencies, to develop a system that that could detect cell phones in a prison. EDO created a black box, which hangs on the wall and scans radio frequencies, looking for cell-phone transmissions. Unfortunately, this means that cell-phone detection with this system is restricted to times of cell-phone transmissions. And, according to a report by NPR, the systems can cost several hundred thousand dollars per prison. (2006, NPR)

There are other companies who are making cell-phone detection products like Arizona’s Cellbusters as well as BINJ Labs with its CellScan product using a sensor approach.

Using these methods can be challenging because sensors are needed throughout the facility. Because of the number of servers, cables, power, etc. used in detection, this may not be cost effective to a facility, especially since many phones may be used in the yard or outside the housing areas, which would require readers all over the property. Additionally these devices can detect only if a cell phone is in use or the cell phone sends out cell bursts to the signal tower.

The latest development on the cell-phone detection scene is the cell-phone sniffing dogs using the same premise as drug or bomb sniffing. The dogs learn to recognize the odors emanating from a cell phone. Experts say there are approximately 18 to 20 distinct odors associated with a cell phone. Unfortunately, the downside is that the dogs pick up other electronic devices like MP3 players with similar electronic odors, so in a jail where other electronic devices are allowed, an inmate may move a phone and have plausible deniability. The downside of using dogs is that the movement of inmates makes it a challenge for the dogs to detect phones, and dogs require ongoing training as well as a handler.

Two California-based companies training dogs for cell-phone detection are Falco K-9 Academy and All States K-9 Detection. Falco, ATF and DEA licensed, is currently working with a number of correctional facilities. Their trainers are recognized throughout the world for their expertise in patrol dog and detection dog training and have trained handlers in South America, Europe and the United States. Additionally, according to Corrections.com, in November 2007, All States K-9 Detection helped the Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) train its drug-detection dogs to find cell phones. VADOC became the first corrections department in the U.S. to implement a cell-phone detection K-9 squad. (Corrections.com)

Whether jamming or detecting, there is no doubt that there has been an increase in the proliferation of cell phones in prison in recent years with detrimental effects. Today there is no clear answer as to how to stop it; however, one way may be to get legislation passed to allow jamming on a case by case basis. The ACA urges people to contact your member(s) of Congress and Senators to express your support for the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009. Other companies will no doubt continue to work on other options and new technologies. PCS will continue to monitor these options and changes to help keep us all better informed.