Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges

Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges

 

Posted on MLive 10/30/15

OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – An attorney claims prosecutors pressured state police crime labs to change the way THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is reported in an effort to circumvent Michigan’s medical marijuana law.

 

Michael Komorn alleges scientists were told to report an unknown origin for THC contained in oil, wax or perhaps a brownie if no visible plant material was present. The THC would then be declared a synthetic substance rather than marijuana – turning a misdemeanor pot charge to a two-year felony.

 

“The crime lab is systematically biased towards falsely reporting Schedule 1 synthetic THC, a felony, instead of plant-based marijuana, a misdemeanor, ” Komorn, a Southfield attorney known for handling medical marijuana cases, told The Grand Rapids Press and MLive.

 

In the case of Max Lorincz, a 35-year-old Spring Lake man with a medical marijuana card, the change could turn him into a felon, Komorn said.

 

Lorincz’s troubles started in September 2014 after calling 911 for medical assistance for his wife. A police officer responded and spotted a small amount – “a smudge,” Komorn said – of hash oil.

 

Ottawa County prosecutors charged him in January with marijuana possession, a misdemeanor. He refused to plead guilty because he was a valid medical marijuana user. The charge was dropped in February, only to be replaced by the felony synthetic THC charge.

 

Komorn used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain numerous emails from state police crime lab workers, some raising concern about the way they had to report THC cases. Others testified in court about the new policy of denying evidence of THC coming from a marijuana plant if no material is found.

 

He contends that the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and state Attorney General Bill Schuette, an opponent of medical marijuana, influenced state police policy.

 

“It is scandalous, scandalous. How can you trust the state lab when they are influenced by politicians?” he said.

 

State police said in a statement: “The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with rests with the prosecutor. The role of the laboratory is to determine whether marihuana or THC are present. Michigan state police laboratory policy was changed to include the statement “origin unknown” when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”

 

Ottawa County Prosecutor Ronald Frantz could not be reached for comment.

 

A hearing in Lorincz’s case is set for Nov. 9 in Ottawa County Circuit Court.

 

In an email Komorn obtained from authorities, a state police crime lab supervisor, Kyle Hoskins, said examiners need to see plant material because they would have no idea how it was produced unless they watched its production. He noted the debate and asked the opinion of Ken Stecker of the Prosecuting Attorney Association of Michigan, who reportedly responded: “That is my opinion, THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from. I hope that helps. Ken.”

 

Marijuana is a Schedule 2 drug under state law.

 

Related: ‘It’s been a nightmare,’ man says of contested synthetic marijuana charge

 

Lt. James Pierson, director of the Grand Rapids laboratory, said that police are finding a “significant amount of THC wax and oil,” which he said are not covered by the medical marijuana law.

 

If police seize wax or oil from a medical marijuana patient, and the lab test identifies the substance as marijuana, rather than delta-1-THC, there is no probable cause to arrest, Pierson said in an email referenced by Komorn in court filings.

 

He said he learned that if a “speck” of plant material is in the oil, the test will come back as marijuana.

 

“Is there any way to get this changed? Our prosecutors are willing to argue that one speck of marijuana does not turn the larger quantity of oil/wax into marijuana,” Pierson wrote.

 

Bradley Choate, supervisor of the Controlled Substances Unit in Lansing, disagreed with the changes. He said analysts are left with two choices when finding THC: identify it as marijuana, which is a misdemeanor for possession, or a synthetic equivalent of THC, which is a felony if possessed.

 

“There is not a third choice,” Choate wrote. “The question then becomes is the THC from a natural source, i.e., marihuana, or a synthetic source. The presence of other cannabinoids indicates that the substance is from a natural source. I don’t know of any other way to determine that THC was synthesized unless a lab was found and the pre cursor substances to make THC were present.”

 

He said prosecutors rely on their reports in filing charges. A report that says delta-1-THC with no explanation would lead a prosecutor to think the substance was synthetic.

 

“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual. For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the Division and the Department.”

 

As forensic scientists, Choate said they had to apply science to the law.

 

“I have a problem with the procedure manual stating that a conclusion of marihuana cannot be stated in the report. … The conclusion is incorrect because the resins are Marihuana. Apparently analysts in our system (are) hung up on the fact that to identify marihuana they need to see plant material.”

 

Choate said that “Guiding Principles” training says “that ‘Conclusions are based on the evidence and the reference material relevant to the evidence, not on extraneous information, political pressure, or other outside influences.”

 

“When we made the previous changes I made it very apparent that I did not agree with it. One of my concerns was that by reporting out THC instead of marijuana it would lead Prosecutors charging people with synthetic THC. This appears to be what the agency wants. The question I would pose to all of our analysts is how they would answer questions on the stand.

 

“In the scenario described how would they answer the question that absent the plant material speck, in their opinion is the rest of the wax material marihuana or not and in their opinion is the THC identified synthetic or natural? Again the legal definition of marihuana includes the resinous extract which contains cannabinoids and we can identify those cannabinoids.”

see original article and more stories here

John Agar covers crime for MLive/Grand Rapids Press E-mail John Agar: jagar@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/ReporterJAgar

Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests

Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests

Fri, 10/30/2015 – 4:11pm

A Michigan medical-marijuana patient claims in court papers that state police crime labs are bending to pressure from prosecutors in analyzing marijuana samples, leading to harsher punishments.

 

Maxwell Lorincz, 35, was originally charged with a possessions misdemeanor for a small amount of marijuana oil after a Sept. 2014 arrest during an emergency call to his home, according to court papers. He contested the charge, due to his status as a legal medical-marijuana patient. It was dropped in January. But a month later he was charged again – and due to a laboratory finding that the oil could be synthetic THC, it was increased to a felony charge with potential prison time under Michigan law.

 

Lorincz’s attorney Michael Komorn alleges the lab engaged in perjury, evidence tampering, and even “rampant illegality” in considering the sample synthetic, due to pressure from prosecutors, they contend in the latest court papers filed Oct. 24.

 

“The Crime Lab was transformed into a Crime Factory which had the direct effect of stripping, in this case Mr. Lorincz, and other patients or caregivers statewide the State authorization to the entitlement to immunity, from arrest, prosecution, or any penalty associated with the medical use of (marijuana),” contends Komorn in the latest motion.

 

The latest filings, obtained by Forensic Magazine, include emails between lab staff, produced by a Freedom of Information Act request. The emails show that the scientists Michigan State Police Crime Lab found the hash oil was “Schedule I THC” from “origin unknown” – mostly because the analysts contend it showed no visible plant material. Prosecutors then brought the felony charge, based on the finding the THC could be synthetic.

 

However, the defense attorneys argue that there were multiple other naturally-occurring cannabinoids in the sample which are not psychoactive – and would be pointless to synthesize.

 

In one of the internal emails, a forensic scientist wrote to his colleagues at the lab that the origin “could not be determined,” and outlined some of the policy repercussions.

 

“Also, by going out on that limb and calling it THC, you now jump from a misdemeanor to a felony charge,” wrote the analyst. “We’re bringing this up because there seemed to be some concern about uniformity in making these calls.

 

“Further, it is highly doubtful that any of these Med. Mari. (sp) products we are seeing have THC that was synthesized,” the analyst added. “This would be completely impractical. We are most likely seeing naturally occurring THC extracted from the plant!”

 

The Michigan Attorney General’s Office and the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office did not return calls from Forensic Magazine.

 

However, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Association of Michigan’s president told local TV station Fox 17 that the allegations against the forensic scientists were groundless.

 

“Any accusation that the Lab and PAAM are directing lab personnel to report crimes without evidence is untrue,” Michael Wendling, the Association’s President reportedly said in a prepared statement.

 

www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/medical-marijuana-patient-alleges-prosecutors-swayed-crime-lab-drug-tests

Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients

Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients

SPRING LAKE, Mich. – The defense representing a Spring Lake father facing a felony marijuana charge is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of misreporting marijuana intentionally. It’s an allegation with statewide implications.

 

FOX 17 first reported Max Lorincz’s case in February: He’s a card-carrying medical marijuana patient. He was charged with felony possession of synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for having a smear amount of butane hash oil (BHO).

 

Fox17News_Video_Grabs_Michigan_Medical_Marijuana_150425_11

 

“If nobody stands up for this and it just keeps going the way it is, how many more people are going to get thrown under the bus just for using their prescribed medicine?” asked Lorincz. “It’s just ridiculous.”

 

Lorincz said BHO, which is made from marijuana resins, is a prescription he uses for debilitating pain. On an unrelated medical emergency call for his wife, law enforcement found a smear of BHO in his family’s home. Now, in part as a result of the charges, Lorincz has lost custody of his six-year-old son, restricted to supervised public visits for the past several months.

 

After FOX 17 reported his case, attorney Michael Komorn at Komorn Law PLLC took Lorincz’s case pro bono.

 

Komorn said MSP crime labs, along with the Michigan attorney general’s office and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, changed crime lab reporting policies for reporting marijuana back in 2013. Based on documents and emails received through the Freedom of Information Act, Komorn said state laboratories are falsely reporting marijuana as synthetic THC, essentially turning a misdemeanor charge into a felony.

 

“What is unique about this case is that they [the prosecution] are relying on the lab to report these substances so that they can escalate these crimes from misdemeanors to felonies,” said Komorn.

 

First charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession, Lorincz refused to plead guilty because he is a card-carrying medical marijuana patient. According to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, this charge can be dropped through Section 4 immunity, or Section 8 by asserting an affirmative defense.

 

However, the Ottawa County prosecutor charged Lorincz with felony synthetic THC possession, relying on the state lab report results from his BHO.

 

According to Lorincz’s crime lab report, technicians deemed his BHO to be “residue, delta-1-Tetrahydrocannabinol, schedule 1,” then the phrase, “origin unknown.”

 

The state lab scientist testified in an earlier April preliminary exam that they could not determine whether Lorincz’s BHO was natural or synthetic. However, the prosecution charged him with felony synthetic THC possession.

 

“When you have a laboratory that is looking at a substance and reporting it in a way that makes it a Schedule 1 instead of the marijuana they know it is, it’s creating a crime,” said Komorn.

 

“This is a lie,” Komorn said. “We have emails within the state laboratory communications indicating this, that they know it’s unlikely, more than unlikely near an impossible, that the patients and caregivers are in a laboratory synthesizing THC. It’s not happening, yet they report it as such.”

 

Komorn filed motions in Ottawa County Circuit Court in this case earlier this week. His firm is stating that the crime labs and prosecution are reporting “bogus crimes,” turning crime labs into a “crime factory.” He stands firm that the prosecution has no credible evidence to charge or convict Lorincz, especially since the state lab scientist testified they cannot prove the substance to be natural or synthetic.

 

Fox 17 MSP Crime Lab Falsifying Reports_KomornLaw 02

 

“The lab as far as I’m concerned has lost its integrity,” said Komorn.

 

“You can’t play around with this type of thing and make stuff up and create crimes and be influenced by what the prosecutors want you to do and then come to court, take an oath, and expect to be received as an expert in forensic science. You’ve lost that.”

 

FOX 17 reached out to Michigan State Police for comment. The MSP public affairs department for the office of the director released this statement to FOX 17:

 

“The ultimate decision on what to charge an individual with rests with the prosecutor. The role of the laboratory is to determine whether marihuana or THC are present. Michigan state police laboratory policy was changed to include the statement “origin unknown” when it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. This change makes it clear that the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”

 

FOX 17 has also reached out to the Michigan attorney general’s office and Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan for comment.

 

The motions filed in court are calling for an evidentiary hearing Nov. 5.
Posted 7:45 PM, October 28, 2015, by Dana Chicklas

Related Posts

a-non-stop-political-game-former-msp-forensic-science-director-on-false-marijuana-reporting

 

Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges

Emails spell out alleged scandal in state crime lab testing, falsely reporting marijuana

Report Shows Michigan Police Seized Over 23 Million In Property and Cash Last Year

Report Shows Michigan Police Seized Over 23 Million In Property and Cash Last Year

Last month, as the Michigan Senate debated a host of reforms to the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, the Michigan State Police released its Asset Forfeiture Report, the annual publication required by state law that details Michigan’s drug-related forfeiture activities.

 

The report aggregates data from 629 local police departments, sheriff’s departments, and multijurisdictional task forces, plus the Michigan State Police. Civil forfeiture is a policy that enables law enforcement authorities to seize property or currency if they suspect it is involved in, or is the result of, a crime.

 

Americans Have Few Protections in Civil Proceedings. Forfeiture proceedings are civil, not criminal, property owners are afforded few due process protections!!

 

Since forfeiture proceedings are civil, not criminal, property owners are afforded few due process protections. With no presumption of innocence or right to an attorney, innocent property owners fighting the seizure of their homes and life savings face a legal landscape skewed against them in nearly every way possible.

 

According to Michigan’s forfeiture report, in 2014, state law enforcement agencies seized and forfeited $23.9 million’s worth of cash and property. That sum includes more than $14 million’s worth of assets forfeited under state law, and an additional $8 million provided to Michigan law enforcement agencies via the federal equitable sharing program.

 

The real total value of forfeited property is likely higher, since only drug-related forfeitures have to be reported.

 

Taking into account the cost of running forfeiture operations, Michigan law enforcement netted a cool $20.4 million in revenue, every penny of which they can spend without political oversight and with little accountability—conditions that are ripe for abuse.

 

Believe it or not, the 12 pages that constitute this year’s forfeiture report are the most detailed look Michiganders and their elected lawmakers get into the world of civil forfeiture.

 

Here are some of the highlights:

 

• 8,558 cases—80 percent of all forfeiture cases in Michigan—were so-called “administrative forfeitures,” meaning that they never saw the inside of a courtroom. Instead, a law enforcement agency—often the agency that made the initial seizure and stands to gain financially from the forfeiture, acts as judge, prosecutor, and jury all in one.

 

• The number-one forfeiture target in Michigan is cash. Michigan law enforcement agencies seized $11.1 million in cold hard cash last year, which accounts for 79 percent of the value of all seized assets and property that were forfeited under state law. Cash presents a particularly inviting target for law enforcement agents. Most bills in circulation are tainted with narcotics, making drug-dog “alerts”—a frequent justification for cash seizures—exceedingly likely, even if the owner has nothing whatsoever to do with the drug trade.

 

• “Conveyances”—vehicles and vessels allegedly used to transport drugs or drug proceeds—were the second-largest category of forfeited item. Michigan forfeited 2,212 vehicles and four vessels last year, for a total value to law enforcement of $1.9 million. Detroit police in particular have faced sharp criticism for their propensity to seize vehicles on highly dubious grounds. In 2008, 44 vehicles were seized from the patrons of the Detroit Contemporary Art Institute’s “Funk Night,” because the museum had failed to obtain a liquor license. Each patron had to pay $900 to get his car back, and a judge later ruled the seizures unconstitutional.

 

• Twelve percent of forfeiture funds were used to cover the cost of personnel and overtime, placing individual members of the law enforcement community directly and personally reliant on forfeiture for their livelihoods, a significant conflict of interest.

 

A Margarita Machine?

 

Forty-four point six percent of forfeiture revenues were used for equipment purchases. While much, if not most, of this category may be above-board (bulletproof gear or body cameras, for example), law enforcement agencies around the country have faced criticism for using forfeiture funds to buy all manner of “equipment” ranging from the outlandish (helicopters and armored personnel carriers) to the absurd (margarita machines).

 

Law enforcement agencies should be generously funded and fully equipped, but the opacity of forfeiture-related purchases makes it impossible to separate the good from the bad.

 

The report raises as many questions as it purports to answer.

 

How many property seizures were accompanied by criminal charges and convictions? How much additional forfeiture revenues were generated in cases unrelated to drugs? What equipment is law enforcement buying with its untraced millions? Why are personnel directly financed by forfeiture funds, given the obvious conflict of interest? And why did 56 agencies not file any documentation whatsoever?

 

Reform is Badly Needed

 

 

Fortunately, answers to these questions may be forthcoming. Last week, the Michigan state Senate unanimously passed a modest reform package that greatly enhances the reporting requirements for law enforcement.
If Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., signs the seven-bill package, Michiganders will finally get to see exactly how often civil forfeiture is accompanied by criminal charges and convictions, and exactly how forfeiture funds are being spent.

 

The reform package also raises the evidentiary standard in forfeiture cases from a “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing,” a much more fitting standard, given that what is often at stake are people’s homes and life savings.

 

Read the Report

Original Post

Jason Snead / @jasonwsnead / October 16, 2015 /

The machines that law enforcement  uses to monitor your phone’s data

The machines that law enforcement uses to monitor your phone’s data

The National Security Agency’s spying tactics are being intensely scrutinized following the recent leaks of secret documents. However, the NSA isn’t the only US government agency using controversial surveillance methods.

 

Monitoring citizens’ cell phones without their knowledge is a booming business. From Arizona to California, Florida to Texas, state and federal authorities have been quietly investing millions of dollars acquiring clandestine mobile phone surveillance equipment in the past decade.

 

Earlier this year, a covert tool called the “Stingray” that can gather data from hundreds of phones over targeted areas attracted international attention. Rights groups alleged that its use could be unlawful. But the same company that exclusively manufacturers the Stingray—Florida-based Harris Corporation—has for years been selling government agencies an entire range of secretive mobile phone surveillance technologies from a catalogue that it conceals from the public on national security grounds.

 

Details about the devices are not disclosed on the Harris website, and marketing materials come with a warning that anyone distributing them outside law enforcement agencies or telecom firms could be committing a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.
 
These little-known cousins of the Stingray cannot only track movements—they can also perform denial-of-service attacks on phones and intercept conversations. Since 2004, Harris has earned more than $40 million from spy technology contracts with city, state, and federal authorities in the US, according to procurement records.

 

In an effort to inform the debate around controversial covert government tactics, Ars has compiled a list of this equipment by scrutinizing publicly available purchasing contracts published on government websites and marketing materials obtained through equipment resellers. Disclosed, in some cases for the first time, are photographs of the Harris spy tools, their cost, names, capabilities, and the agencies known to have purchased them.

 

What follows is the most comprehensive picture to date of the mobile phone surveillance technology that has been deployed in the US over the past decade.

 

 

“Stingray”

 

cellphone_surveillance_stingray_spyshopllc

 

The Stingray has become the most widely known and contentious spy tool used by government agencies to track mobile phones, in part due to an Arizona court case that called the legality of its use into question. It’s a box-shaped portable device, sometimes described as an “IMSI catcher,” that gathers information from phones by sending out a signal that tricks them into connecting to it. The Stingray can be covertly set up virtually anywhere—in the back of a vehicle, for instance—and can be used over a targeted radius to collect hundreds of unique phone identifying codes, such as the International Mobile Subscriber Number (IMSI) and the Electronic Serial Number (ESM). The authorities can then hone in on specific phones of interest to monitor the location of the user in real time or use the spy tool to log a record of all phones in a targeted area at a particular time.

 

The FBI uses the Stingray to track suspects and says that it does not use the tool to intercept the content of communications.

 

However, this capability does exist. Procurement documents indicate that the Stingray can also be used with software called “FishHawk,” (PDF) which boosts the device’s capabilities by allowing authorities to eavesdrop on conversations. Other similar Harris software includes “Porpoise,” which is sold on a USB drive and is designed to be installed on a laptop and used in conjunction with transceivers—possibly including the Stingray—for surveillance of text messages.

 

Similar devices are sold by other government spy technology suppliers, but US authorities appear to use Harris equipment exclusively. They’ve awarded the company “sole source” contracts because its spy tools provide capabilities that authorities claim other companies do not offer. The Stingray has become so popular, in fact, that “Stingray” has become a generic name used informally to describe all kinds of IMSI catcher-style devices.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Stingray was first filed in August 2001. Earlier versions of the technology—sometimes described as “digital analyzers” or “cell site simulators” by the FBI—were being deployed in the mid-1990s. An upgraded version of the Stingray, named the “Stingray II,” was introduced to the spy tech market by Harris Corp. between 2007 and 2008. Photographs filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office depict the Stingray II as a more sophisticated device, with many additional USB inputs and a switch for a “GPS antenna,” which is likely used to assist in location tracking.

 

Cost: $68,479 for the original Stingray; $134,952 for Stingray II.

 

Agencies: Federal authorities have spent more than $30 million on Stingrays and related equipment and training since 2004, according to procurement records. Purchasing agencies include the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, the Army, and the Navy. Cops in Arizona, Maryland, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and California have also either purchased or considered purchasing the devices, according to public records. In one case, procurement records (PDF) show cops in Miami obtained a Stingray to monitor phones at a free trade conference held in Miami in 2003.

 

 

“Gossamer”

gossamer-cellphone-surveillance

 

The Gossamer is a small portable device that can be used to secretly gather data on mobile phones operating in a target area. It sends out a covert signal that tricks phones into handing over their unique codes—such as the IMSI and TMSI—which can be used to identify users and home in on specific devices of interest. What makes it different from the Stingray? Not only is the Gossamer much smaller, but it can also be used to perform a denial-of-service attack on phone users, blocking targeted people from making or receiving calls, according to marketing materials (PDF) published by a Brazilian reseller of the Harris equipment. The Gossamer has the appearance of a clunky-looking handheld transceiver. One photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows it displaying an option for “mobile interrogation” on its small LCD screen, which sits above a telephone-style keypad.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Gossamer was first filed in October 2001.

 

Cost: $19,696.

 

Agencies: Between 2005 and 2009, the FBI, Special Operations Command, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent more than $1.3 million purchasing Harris’ Gossamer technology and upgrading existing Gossamer units, according to procurement records. Most of the $1.3 million was spent by the FBI as part of a large contract in 2005.

 

 

“Triggerfish”

 

Triggerfish-cellphone-surveillance

 

 

The Triggerfish is an eavesdropping device. It allows authorities to covertly intercept mobile phone conversations in real time. This sets it apart from the original version of the Stingray, which marketing documents suggest was designed mainly for location monitoring and gathering metadata (though software can allow the Stingray to eavesdrop). The Triggerfish, which looks similar in size to the Stingray, can also be used to identify the location from which a phone call is being made. It can gather large amounts of data on users over a targeted area, allowing authorities to view identifying codes of up to 60,000 different phones at one time, according to marketing materials.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Triggerfish was filed in July 2001, though its “first use anywhere” is listed as November 1997. It is not clear whether the Triggerfish is still for sale or whether its name has recently changed, as the trademark on the device was canceled in 2008, and it does not appear on Harris’ current federal price lists.

 

Cost: Between $90,000 and $102,000.

 

Agencies: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the DEA; and county cops in Miami-Dade invested in Triggerfish technology prior to 2004, according to procurement records. However, the procurement records (PDF) also show that the Miami-Dade authorities complained that the device “provided access” only to Cingular and AT&T wireless network carriers. (This was before the two companies merged.) To remedy that, the force complemented the Triggerfish tool with additional Harris technology, including the Stingray and Amberjack, which enabled monitoring of Metro PCS, Sprint, and Verizon. This gave the cops “the ability to track approximately ninety percent of the wireless industry,” the procurement documents state.

 

 

“Kingfish”

 

kingfish-cellphone-surveillance

 

The Kingfish is a surveillance transceiver that allows authorities to track and mine information from mobile phones over a targeted area. The device does not appear to enable interception of communications; instead, it can covertly gather unique identity codes and show connections between phones and numbers being dialed. It is smaller than the Stingray, black and gray in color, and can be controlled wirelessly by a conventional notebook PC using Bluetooth. You can even conceal it in a discreet-looking briefcase, according to marketing brochures.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Kingfish was filed in August 2001. Its “first use anywhere” is listed in records as December 2003.

 

Cost: $25,349.

 

 

Agencies: Government agencies have spent about $13 million on Kingfish technology since 2006, sometimes as part of what is described in procurement documents as a “vehicular package” deal that includes a Stingray. The US Marshals Service; Secret Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Army; Air Force; state cops in Florida; county cops in Maricopa, Arizona; and Special Operations Command have all purchased a Kingfish in recent years.

 

“Amberjack”

 

amberjack_cellphone_surveillance

 

The Amberjack is an antenna that is used to help track and locate mobile phones. It is designed to be used in conjunction with the Stingray, Gossamer, and Kingfish as a “direction-finding system” (PDF) that monitors the signal strength of the targeted phone in order to home in on the suspect’s location in real time. The device comes inbuilt with magnets so it can be attached to the roof of a police vehicle, and it has been designed to have a “low profile” for covert purposes. A photograph of the Amberjack filed with a trademark application reveals that the device, which is metallic and circular in shape, comes with a “tie-down kit” to prevent it from falling off the roof of a vehicle that is being driven at “highway speeds.”

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Amberjack was filed in August 2001 at the same time as the Stingray. Its “first use anywhere” is listed in records as October 2002.

 

Cost: $35,015

 

Agencies: The DEA; FBI; Special Operations Command; Secret Service; the Navy; the US Marshals Service; and cops in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas have all purchased Amberjack technology, according to procurement records.

 

“Harpoon”

 

harpoon_cellphone_surveillance

 

The Harpoon is an “amplifier” (PDF) that can boost the signal of a Stingray or Kingfish device, allowing it to project its surveillance signal farther or from a greater distance depending on the location of the targets. A photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows that the device has two handles for carrying and a silver, metallic front with a series of inputs that allow it to be connected to other mobile phone spy devices.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a filing for the Harpoon was filed in June 2008.

 

Cost: $16,000 to $19,000.

 

Agencies: The DEA; state cops in Florida; city cops in Tempe, Arizona; the Army; and the Navy are among those to have purchased Harpoons since 2009.

 

 

“Hailstorm”

 

The Hailstorm is the latest in the line of mobile phone tracking tools that Harris Corp. is offering authorities. However, few details about it have trickled into the public domain. It can be purchased as a standalone unit or as an upgrade to the Stingray or Kingfish, which suggests that it has the same functionality as these devices but has been tweaked with new or more advanced capabilities. Procurement documents (PDF) show that Harris Corp. has, in at least one case, recommended that authorities use the Hailstorm in conjunction with software made by Nebraska-based surveillance company Pen-Link. The Pen-Link software appears to enable authorities deploying the Hailstorm to directly communicate with cell phone carriers over an Internet connection, possibly to help coordinate the surveillance of targeted individuals.

 

First used: Unknown.

 

Cost: $169,602 as a standalone unit. The price is reduced when purchased as an upgrade.

 

Agencies: Public records show that earlier this year, the Baltimore Police Department, county cops in Oakland County, Michigan, and city cops in Phoenix, Arizona, each separately entered the procurement process to obtain the Hailstorm equipment. The Baltimore and Phoenix forces each set aside about $100,000 for the device, and they purchased it as an upgrade to Stingray II mobile phone spy technology. The Phoenix cops spent an additional $10,000 on Hailstorm training sessions conducted by Harris Corp. in Melbourne, Florida, and Oakland County authorities said they obtained a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to help finance the procurement of the Hailstorm tool. The Oakland authorities noted that the device was needed for “pinpoint tracking of criminal activity.” It is highly likely that other authorities—particularly federal agencies—will invest in the Hailstorm too, with procurement records eventually surfacing later this year or into 2014.

 

No one’s talking

 

The FBI has previously stated in response to questions about the Stingray device that it “strives to protect our country and its people using every available tool” and that location data in particular is a “vital component” of investigations. But when it comes to discussing specific surveillance equipment, it is common for the authorities to remain tight-lipped because they don’t want to reveal tactics to criminals.

 

The code of silence shrouding the above tools, however, is highly contentious. Their use by law enforcement agencies is in a legal gray zone, particularly because interference with communications signals is supposed to be prohibited under the federal Communications Act. In May, an Arizona court ruled that the FBI’s use of a Stingray was lawful in a case involving conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft. But according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), when seeking authorization for the use of the Stingray tool, the feds have sometimes unlawfully withheld information from judges about the full scope of its capabilities. This means that judges across the country are potentially authorizing the use of the technology without even knowing what it actually does.

 

That’s not all. There is another significant issue raised by the Harris spy devices: security. According to Christopher Soghoian, chief technologist at the ACLU, similar covert surveillance technology is being manufactured by a host of companies in other countries like China and Russia. He believes the US government’s “state secrecy” on the subject is putting Americans at risk.

 

“Our government is sitting on a security flaw that impacts every phone in the country,” Soghoian says. “If we don’t talk about Stingray-style tools and the flaws that they exploit, we can’t defend ourselves against foreign governments and criminals using this equipment, too.”