contraband phones and telecommunications law
Cell Phones in Georgia Prisons: What the Law Allows
This collection sets out facts from public sources on the subject in its title, drawn from Georgia, federal sources, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and other sources. Each entry gives a short statement, the exact passage from the source that supports it, and the source's title, web address and the date it was retrieved. Searches of a source that found no match are listed too, with the wordings that were tried. The entries record what each source said when it was retrieved. They aren't a complete account of the subject, and they don't add analysis or conclusions.
Where this research is used
This page is a research collection: individual facts drawn from the sources listed further down, each traced to where it came from. A research topic brings many collections together into one overview of an issue. The facts on this page feed these 4 topics; open one to see how they fit with the rest of the evidence.
Communications & Technology
Georgia's prison communications system runs through a single dominant vendor, Securus Technologies, that sells the phone service, supplies the tablets, moves the money, and operates the cell-phone blocking equipment at four state prisons — while paying Georgia a 59.6% commission on every call. Families pay for that arrangement at every step: per-minute calls, email stamps, money-transfer fees, music and e-book markups, and roughly $115 to $135 a month in estimated communications costs. The state has spent approximately $50 million through fiscal year 2026 blocking contraband phones even as phone-related incidents rose from 8,966 in 2019 to 11,880 in 2024, and its own records on the contracts that govern all of it remain largely undisclosed.
3,368 data points
Legal Standards & Case Law
Georgia's prison conditions are judged against a constitutional floor built between 1976 and 1994 — Estelle v. Gamble, Rhodes v. Chapman, Wilson v. Seiter, Helling v. McKinney, and Farmer v. Brennan — then narrowed by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act and, in the Eleventh Circuit, by Wade v. McDade in 2024. The distance between that floor and what Georgians in custody actually experience has been documented in a federal takeover of Georgia State Prison that ran from 1972 to 1999, a solitary-confinement consent decree the state was held in contempt of in April 2024, and an October 2024 Department of Justice findings letter concluding that Georgia engages in a pattern or practice of Eighth Amendment violations. This page sets out what the law requires, what it permits, and where the gap between the two has been measured.
8,020 data points
Oversight & Accountability
Georgia operates one of the largest state prison systems in the country with no independent ombudsman, no inspector general for corrections, no outside monitors with a right of entry, and no oversight bill that has ever passed its legislature. Every accountability mechanism that exists — PREA compliance, internal investigations, mortality review, accreditation — is housed inside the Georgia Department of Corrections and answers to the Commissioner it is meant to check. The result, documented across 108 GPS research collections, is a system that reported 6 homicides in a month when its own records showed at least 18, that passed 273 consecutive sexual-abuse audits with zero failed standards while the U.S. Department of Justice found assault rampant, and that has faced a 93-page federal findings letter, 82 recommended remedies, a contempt order, and daily court fines without a single enforceable reform.
15,407 data points
Policy & Advocacy
Georgia's policy and advocacy landscape is defined by a paradox: a decade of bipartisan sentencing reform that measurably reduced incarceration and racial disparity, followed by a sharp reversal toward prison construction, surveillance technology, and record spending attached to no independent oversight. Legislative victories on wrongful conviction compensation, survivor justice, and out-of-time appeals sit alongside bills that died in the last minutes of session — an independent prison ombudsman, restrictive housing limits, parole transparency — and a post-conviction system the Chief Justice of Georgia calls 'a mess' that only the legislature can fix. The 2026 statewide elections and an unresolved federal investigation are the two live pressure points advocates are organizing around.
7,412 data points
Key Findings
The most impactful data from this research collection. Tap a card for the full finding and its source.
The finding
Butts County Sheriff Gary Long, posting on social media, stated that since 2020 more than 1,500 individuals have died while in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC), with deaths attributed to violence, inadequate medical care, suicide, and other systemic failures. This is a claim by a county sheriff, not an official GDC figure.
The finding
Butts County Sheriff Gary Long, in a social media post, said he views the Georgia Department of Corrections as 'the largest taxpayer-funded gang recruitment center in the state.'
The finding
GDC SOP 215.23, Transitional Center Resident Cell Phones, states that use of GDC-approved cellular phones is a privilege and not a right, that loss of this privilege is non-grievable, and that all communications sent or received via a GDC-approved cellular device are subject to inspection and review for security reasons, with neither sender nor receiver having an expectation of privacy.
The finding
Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said that inmates at Wheeler Correctional Institute, where people are serving life or significant portions of a life sentence, have access to cell phones and iPads and use them to make scam phone calls. Source text: "this Wheeler Correctional Institute, where people are serving life in prison or significant portions of their life prison, have access to cell phones and iPads," Chitwood explained.
The finding
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(4) provides that a department employee or contractor who commits or attempts to commit a violation of subsection (b) or (b.1) is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment.
The finding
GDC SOP 209.01, Offender Discipline, states that an offender found guilty of the offense of Possession of a Cell Phone shall be charged an administrative processing fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
The finding
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f)(4) declares unmanned aircraft systems operated in violation of subsection (f) to be contraband, subject to seizure, removal, destruction, or disposal by law enforcement at the owner's expense.
The finding
The FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on contraband wireless devices states that the Commission seeks to build a record on a proposed regulatory framework to authorize, for the first time, non-federal operation of radio frequency jamming solutions in the limited context of correctional facilities.
Source
The finding
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr led a bipartisan coalition of 31 state attorneys general urging Congress to pass H.R. 2350 and S. 1137, legislation that would allow states to deploy cell phone jamming technology in prisons and jails, introduced by Tennessee Congressman David Kustoff.
The finding
A WGXA article reported that the FCC approved a proposal to allow cellphone jammers in state and local prisons across the U.S., in a related story linked alongside coverage of Sheriff Gary Long's call for lawmakers to address Georgia prison contraband. Source text: "RELATED | FCC approves proposal to allow cellphone jammers in state and local prisons across U.S."
The finding
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr's office stated that in the prior year GDC seized and processed over 15,500 cell phones and more than 150 drones.
The finding
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that a defendant's claimed ignorance that inmates were barred from possessing cell phones did not negate the criminal intent required for conviction of possession of a telecommunications device by an inmate, because ignorance of the law does not excuse a person who intended to do the act the legislature prohibited.
All Data Points
224 verified data points extracted from primary sources.
Sheriff Long: 1,500+ deaths in GDC custody since 2020 Statistic
Butts County Sheriff Gary Long, posting on social media, stated that since 2020 more than 1,500 individuals have died while in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC), with deaths attributed to violence, inadequate medical care, suicide, and other systemic failures. This is a claim by a county sheriff, not an official GDC figure.
1,500 deaths
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(a)(8) defines 'Signal jammer' Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(a)(8) defines 'Signal jammer' as any device, instrument, or apparatus which through emitting a signal is capable of preventing, disrupting, delaying, degrading, or otherwise interfering with the transmission of a communication signal over any wireless communications system, cellular communications system, radar system, or global positioning system, or any radio, telephone, or cable line, station, or system.
Source
FCC 13-58: Managed access systems capture all communications in coverage area Legal fact
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 13-58) states that managed access system base stations capture all voice, text, and data communications within the system coverage area, which would be a correctional facility in the instant case.
FCC 24-75: Martha Wright-Reed Act Section 4 preserves institutional safety and security measures Legal fact
Section 4 of the Martha Wright-Reed Act does not prohibit a correctional institution from implementing any safety and security measure it deems appropriate, and the FCC's rate-cap order does not intrude on that ability, though the FCC need not require consumers to pay for all such measures through IPCS rates. Source text: "Our actions in this Order make no such intrusion. We do not prohibit any correctional institution from implementing any safety and security measure that it deems appropriate or desirable."
Volusia County Sheriff identifies two Georgia prisons behind inmate phone scam ring Case detail
Volusia County (Florida) Sheriff Mike Chitwood identified Wheeler Correctional Institution in Wheeler County and Calhoun State Prison in Calhoun County as the Georgia detention centers behind a scam ring run by inmates targeting Florida residents.
47 U.S.C. § 305(a): Government radio stations exempt from FCC licensing provisions Legal fact
47 U.S.C. § 305(a) provides that radio stations belonging to and operated by the United States shall not be subject to the provisions of sections 301 and 303 of title 47, and that such Government stations shall use frequencies assigned by the President.
Source
Henry v. State: Circumstantial evidence sufficient for furnishing cell phones and contraband to inmates Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that evidence was sufficient to support convictions for furnishing prohibited items to inmates (cell phones, cell phone chargers, tobacco, rolling papers, and lighters) under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b) as a party to the crime where the defendant placed a bag of contraband in a car's trunk, offered a second passenger money to ride along, and asked to exit the car when it approached the prison late at night, rejecting the defendant's argument that the evidence showed only mere presence. The court noted officers testified it was typical for contraband to be bundled with black tape and thrown over the prison fence.
1976 Act criminalized furnishing contraband to convicts Legal fact
Ga. L. 1976, p. 1506 added a new Section 33.8 to Georgia's prison code making it unlawful for any person to obtain or procure for or give to a convict a gun, pistol, or any other weapon, intoxicating liquor, amphetamines, biphetamines, other hallucinogenic drugs, drugs, or any other article or item without the knowledge and consent of the warden or deputy warden, with a knowing violation a felony punishable as provided in section 33.6.
GDC SOP 204.09 defines 'Cellular (Cell) Phone' as a Wireless Communication Device Policy
GDC SOP 204.09, Wireless Communications Devices, defines 'Wireless Communication Devices' to include, but not be limited to, a 'Cellular (Cell) Phone', defined as 'A phone that permits Wireless Communication.'
Sheriff Long calls GDC 'largest taxpayer-funded gang recruitment center' Finding
Butts County Sheriff Gary Long, in a social media post, said he views the Georgia Department of Corrections as 'the largest taxpayer-funded gang recruitment center in the state.'
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(g)(2) exempts public safety and law enforcement from jammer prohibitions Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(g)(2) exempts from the Code section's prohibitions the possession, use, operation, manufacture, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or importation of a signal jammer in Georgia by public safety agencies and state and local law enforcement.
Source
Washington v. Reno: Prisoners have no right to unlimited telephone use Legal fact
The Sixth Circuit stated that a prisoner's right to telephone access is subject to rational limitations in the face of legitimate security interests of the penal institution, and that a prisoner has no right to unlimited telephone use.
FCC 24-75: Two categories of safety and security costs deemed used and useful Legal fact
The FCC found two categories of safety and security costs to be generally used and useful -- CALEA compliance measures and communications security services -- and concluded that the remaining five categories of safety and security measures should not be treated as used and useful in setting a lower bound on the range of reasonable rates. Source text: "We find two categories of safety and security costs to be generally used and useful— Category 1: CALEA compliance measures; and Category 3: communications security services. We conclude that the remaining five categories of safety and security measures should not be treated as used and useful in setting a lower bound on the range of reasonable rates."
Sheriff Chitwood criticizes GDC over inmate-run phone scam Quote
Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said, "It would be nice if the Georgia Department of Corrections would wake up and put a stop to this," regarding inmates running a phone scam ring from Georgia prisons.
Henry v. State: Indictment citing wrong statutory subsection not fatal Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that an indictment charging a defendant with furnishing tobacco to an inmate was not invalid merely because it cited the wrong statutory subsection of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18 (citing subsection (b) instead of (b.1)), because all that is required is that the indictment's language track the statutory language.
1976 Act title described contraband prohibition Legal fact
The 1976 Act was titled an Act to amend the prison code revision so as to provide that it shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or procure for or give to a convict a weapon, intoxicating liquors, drugs or any other article or item without the consent of the warden or deputy warden.
GDC SOP 204.09 bars non-state-issued wireless devices in facilities without prior approval Policy
GDC SOP 204.09 provides that at no time shall non-state-issued wireless devices be allowed inside any GDC facility without prior approval of the Appointing Authority. The only exceptions are Health Service Administrators, Physicians, Psychiatrists, and/or Psychologists, who are authorized to bring personal cell phones/smart phones into the facility with prior written approval from the Appointing Authority.
Strozier v. State: conviction reversed for failure to exclude reasonable hypothesis of job performance Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a conviction under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(c) for possession of drugs by an inmate because the State's evidence (an inmate assigned to empty trash cans who moved a bag between two trash cans, one of which was later found to contain marijuana and a cell phone) showed only that the defendant violated prison trash-handling procedure and failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that he was merely performing his assigned job. Source text: "Accordingly, the State failed to demonstrate that Strozier had the bag in his possession for any reason other than the performance of his assigned duties and thus failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that Strozier was merely performing his job that morning when he removed the bag from one trash can and placed it in the other. We, therefore, reverse his conviction for possession of drugs by an inmate."
Butts County drone contraband drop thwarted; one arrested Case detail
A drone contraband drop at a Butts County facility was thwarted and one person was arrested, prompting Sheriff Gary Long to call for changes to the Georgia Department of Corrections prison system and FCC cell phone jamming authority.
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(g)(2) extends jammer exemption to correctional agencies Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(g)(2) extends its exemption to correctional agencies, or any other person or entity that is legally authorized to possess, use, operate, manufacture, sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import a signal jammer in Georgia.
Source
Washington v. Reno: BOP regulation amendments lessened likelihood of First Amendment success Legal fact
The Sixth Circuit found that the Bureau of Prisons' amendments to its inmate telephone system regulations substantially lessened the likelihood that plaintiffs could succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims challenging the direct-dial telephone system.
FCC 24-75: Seven categories of IPCS safety and security costs Policy
The FCC's categories of IPCS safety and security costs include CALEA compliance measures, law enforcement support services, communications security services, communication recording services, communication monitoring services, voice biometrics services, and other safety and security measures. Source text: "The categories are: (1) CALEA compliance measures, (2) law enforcement support services, (3) communications security services, (4) communication recording services, (5) communication monitoring services, (6) voice biometrics services, and (7) other safety and"
Atlanta woman charged in Florida in bitcoin jury duty scam linked to Georgia inmates Case detail
An Atlanta woman was charged in Florida in connection with a bitcoin jury duty scam that authorities linked to inmates in Georgia prisons, according to CBS Atlanta reporting.
Henry v. State: Venue proper in county where prison located for furnishing contraband Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that venue was properly established in the county where the prison was located for a charge of furnishing contraband to an inmate under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b), because the State was not required to show the defendant purchased or obtained the contraband items in that county, since it is the act of obtaining the items for an inmate held in that county's prison that makes the conduct unlawful.
1976 Act permitted cameras in prisons except during attorney discussions Legal fact
The 1976 Act amended Code § 26-3001(b) (now O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2)) to provide that it shall not be unlawful to use cameras or other devices to observe, photograph or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any prison, penitentiary, jail, correctional institution or similar facility, with a proviso that the equipment not be used while the prisoner is discussing his case with his attorney.
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(g)(2) exempts public safety and correctional agencies from signal-jammer prohibitions Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46(g)(2) exempts from the state's signal-jammer prohibitions the possession, use, operation, manufacture, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or importation of a signal jammer by public safety agencies, state and local law enforcement and correctional agencies, or any other legally authorized person or entity.
Strozier later treatment: followed Collinsworth, distinguished Webb Legal fact
Later treatment: Strozier v. State followed Collinsworth v. State (affirming conviction for possession of drugs by an inmate where marijuana found in inmate's cell) and distinguished Webb v. State (marijuana found in container belonging to inmate in locker, which opened only with warden's master key or combination known only to inmate).
Commissioner Dozier at CTIA meeting on managed access Finding
GDC Board of Corrections minutes record then-Commissioner Gregory Dozier explaining at a CTIA meeting (with FCC present) that he was excited the telephone carriers were finally at the table to discuss managed access and some possible solutions.
Georgia signal jammer act effective July 1, 2026 Legal fact
The signal jammer act provides that the Act shall become effective on July 1, 2026.
Source
Washington v. Reno: Injunction modified to bar only unauthorized Commissary Fund spending Legal fact
On interlocutory appeal from a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Prisons' direct-dial inmate telephone system, the Sixth Circuit held the Bureau's new final rule meant plaintiffs could no longer show substantial likelihood of success on First Amendment and other claims. The injunction was modified to bar only statutorily unauthorized spending from the inmate Commissary Fund (spending primarily for security), and the rest was dissolved.
FCC 24-75: Section 4 does not stop FCC from excluding non-necessary security costs from consumer rates Legal fact
In its IPCS rate order (an agency order, not a court decision) the FCC read section 4 of the Martha Wright-Reed Act as preserving correctional institutions' ability to adopt safety and security policies. It concluded that section 4 does not stop the FCC from excluding the costs of security measures that aren't necessary to provide IPCS from the rates consumers pay. Source text: "We do, however, ensure that IPCS consumers do not bear the costs of those safety and security measures that are not necessary to provide IPCS regardless of how desirable these measures may be to correctional institutions. Section 4 does not preclude such an outcome."
Ninth Circuit: Alaska telephone-access statute creates no liberty interest Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit held that the Alaska statute giving prisoners "reasonable access" to a telephone did not create a state-created liberty interest protected by the Constitution, because it did not mandate a particular outcome. Source text: "We conclude that Valdez did not have a state-created liberty interest in using a telephone during his pretrial confinement. Accordingly, his procedural due process claims fail."
Butts County Sheriff statement on drone contraband headed to Ware State Prison Quote
Butts County Sheriff Gary Long said, after a July 2026 traffic stop on I-75 that turned up a drone and contraband believed headed to Ware State Prison, "We have ignored this problem for far too long, and our communities are paying the price."
Henry v. State: Full appellate disposition affirming furnishing convictions Legal fact
On appeal from denial of a motion for new trial, the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for furnishing prohibited items under OCGA § 42-5-18(b): circumstantial evidence sufficed for party-to-the-crime liability; an indictment citing the wrong subsection is not fatal where its language tracks the statute; accomplice testimony was corroborated; venue lay in Dooly County because obtaining items for an inmate of the prison there is the unlawful act; and ineffective-assistance claims failed for lack of prejudice.
Definition of telecommunications device under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(a)(3) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(a)(3) defines 'telecommunications device' as a device, apparatus, or component that enables communication with a person outside a place of incarceration, including a telephone, cellular telephone, personal digital assistant, transmitting radio, or networked computer, by wireless or other technology.
GDC SOP 215.23: cell phone use is a non-grievable privilege with no expectation of privacy Policy
GDC SOP 215.23, Transitional Center Resident Cell Phones, states that use of GDC-approved cellular phones is a privilege and not a right, that loss of this privilege is non-grievable, and that all communications sent or received via a GDC-approved cellular device are subject to inspection and review for security reasons, with neither sender nor receiver having an expectation of privacy.
Volusia sheriff: Wheeler Correctional Institute inmates have cell phones and iPads used for scams Quote
Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said that inmates at Wheeler Correctional Institute, where people are serving life or significant portions of a life sentence, have access to cell phones and iPads and use them to make scam phone calls. Source text: "this Wheeler Correctional Institute, where people are serving life in prison or significant portions of their life prison, have access to cell phones and iPads," Chitwood explained.
GDC facility security technology items (2022) Policy
GDC Board of Corrections minutes list, among a facility's security technology items, drone detection, a body scanner in the front bunker, cell sense, and the managed access system.
Georgia signal jammer bill signed as Act 495 on 05/11/2026 Legal fact
The Governor signed the bill on 05/11/2026, and it was assigned Act 495.
Arsberry v. Illinois: Exorbitant collect-call rates claim lacks First Amendment merit Legal fact
The Seventh Circuit held that inmates' and their families' claim that exorbitant collect-call telephone rates for prison phone service violated the First Amendment lacked merit.
FCC 25-75 Report and Order adopted October 28, 2025 Legal fact
An FCC Report and Order was adopted October 28, 2025 and released November 6, 2025, revising interim audio and video IPCS rate caps. Source text: "REPORT AND ORDER, ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: October 28, 2025 Released: November 6, 2025"
July 2026 I-75 traffic stop seized drone and contraband bound for Ware State Prison Case detail
A Butts County deputy seized a drone and contraband along I-75 on July 21, 2026, with the contraband believed to be headed to Ware State Prison.
Henry v. State follows Terrell v. State on venue for furnishing contraband Legal fact
Later treatment: Henry v. State (Ga. Ct. App.) followed Terrell v. State (Ga. App.) on the venue question for furnishing contraband to an inmate.
Definition of warden or superintendent under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(a) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(a) defines 'warden or superintendent' as the commissioner or any warden, superintendent, sheriff, chief jailer, or other person responsible for the overall management and operation of a place of incarceration.
GDC SOP 215.23: staff may confiscate, search, track, and share resident cell phone information Policy
GDC SOP 215.23 states that GDC staff has the authority to confiscate, search, track, and/or obtain any information concerning resident cell phones, and that information may be provided to other law enforcement agencies as requested.
GDC SOP 104.47 bars employees from bringing personal communications devices into facilities Policy
A GDC policy titled Employee Standards of Conduct states that employees shall not bring any personal Communications devices into any facility, any State of Georgia vehicle that is transporting Offenders, any outside detail location or place of employment of an Offender, or into any perimeter vehicle, and that these personally owned devices must be kept secured in the employee's personal vehicle at all times while the employee is on duty, with the singular exception of a Communications Device issued by the Department for the specific purpose of performing job duties. Source text: "22. Employees shall not bring any personal Communications devices into any facility, any State of Georgia vehicle that is transporting Offenders, any outside detail location or place of employment of an Offender, or into any perimeter vehicle. These devices, personally owned by an employee, must be kept secured in the employee's personal vehicle at all times while the employee is on duty. The singular exception to this rule is a Communications Device issued by the Department to an employee for the specific purpose of performing his or her job duties and is utilized and maintained according to the rules governing these devices."
HB 1230 / Act 388: drone contraband and mitigation measures Finding
Act 388 (HB 1230) revises provisions relating to restrictions on the operation of an unmanned aircraft system near a place of incarceration, prohibiting the knowing and intentional use, or use from a person's property, of an unmanned aircraft system to provide prohibited items to inmates or to photograph or record a place of incarceration for the purpose of committing a criminal offense, permits unmanned aircraft systems used in violation of the statute to be treated as contraband, permits law enforcement agencies to take mitigation measures against unmanned aircraft systems operating over a place of incarceration, and amends O.C.G.A. Sections 6-1-4 and 42-5-18, effective July 1, 2026.
Georgia unmanned-aircraft-over-incarceration-facilities act signed as Act 388 Legal fact
The Governor signed the unmanned-aircraft-over-incarceration-facilities act on 05/05/2026, and it was assigned Act 388, with an effective date of 07/01/2026.
Arsberry v. Illinois: Discriminatory tariffed rates within telephone regulators' primary jurisdiction Legal fact
The Seventh Circuit held that a claim of discriminatory tariffed prison telephone rates is within the primary jurisdiction of the telephone regulators, not the federal courts.
FCC 25-75 reverses exclusion of safety and security costs from IPCS rate calculations Legal fact
The Commission reconsidered its previous decision to exclude various safety and security costs from IPCS rate cap calculations and instead treats all reported safety and security costs as used and useful costs for determining the costs included in the lower bounds of the zones of reasonableness. Source text: "decision to exclude various safety and security costs from its IPCS rate cap calculations and instead treat all reported safety and security costs as used and useful costs for determining the costs to be included in the lower bounds of the zones of reasonableness"
Ninth Circuit notes obscurity of purported First Amendment telephone right Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit noted that it had previously stated in dicta that prisoners have a First Amendment right to telephone access, subject to reasonable security limitations, but observed that the genesis of that purported constitutional right is obscure. Source text: "791 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.1986). The genesis of this purported constitutional right to use a telephone is obscure."
Hudson v. Palmer: no Fourth Amendment privacy expectation in prison cell Legal fact
The Supreme Court held in Hudson v. Palmer (1984) that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of a prison cell because society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy a prisoner might have there.
Derek Burns v. State follows Rogers v. State Legal fact
Later treatment: Derek Burns v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia) followed Rogers v. State (Ga.) regarding an exception to the rule announced in Keller.
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b) prohibits furnishing telecommunications devices to inmates Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b) makes it unlawful for any person to obtain for, procure for, or give to an inmate a telecommunications device, among other listed items, without the authorization of the warden or superintendent or his or her designee.
GDC SOP 215.23: cell phone privileges revocable at Superintendent's discretion Policy
GDC SOP 215.23 states that cell phone privileges may be revoked at the discretion of the Superintendent or for any disciplinary reason.
Collinsworth v. State: conviction affirmed for drugs in shampoo bottle at Smith State Prison Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a conviction for unauthorized possession of drugs by an inmate under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b) where the trial court had sentenced the defendant as a recidivist to serve five years consecutive to his prior sentence. On appeal raising only the general grounds, the court held the evidence (marijuana in a shampoo bottle among the inmate's inventoried property at Smith State Prison) sufficient for a rational trier of fact to convict. Source text: "A jury convicted Doak Collinsworth of the unauthorized possession of drugs by an inmate, OCGA § 42-5-18 (b). The trial court sentenced him as a recidivist to serve five years consecutive to his prior sentence."
HB 1230 warden approval as evidence of lack of criminal intent Legal fact
HB 1230 allows a warden's prior approval to serve as evidence for a lack of criminal intent for unmanned aircraft system use near a place of incarceration.
Georgia Board of Corrections rule classifies communication devices as contraband Policy
A Georgia Board of Corrections disciplinary rule classifies as contraband 'An apparatus associated with a device, or a component of a device that enables, or may be used to enable, communication with a person outside a place of incarceration, including a telephone, cellular telephone, personal digital assistant, transmitting radio, or computer connected or capable of being connected to a computer network, by wireless or other technology.'
Arsberry v. Illinois: Dismissal affirmed on merits; equal protection and antitrust claims disposed of separately Legal fact
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, as modified, the dismissal of inmates' and families' federal challenges to exclusive prison phone contracts and high collect-call rates. It rested mostly on the merits: First Amendment, contracts, takings, due process and horizontal antitrust claims failed. The equal protection (rate-discrimination) claim fell within regulators' primary jurisdiction, and the vertical antitrust claim was barred by the filed-rate doctrine.
18 U.S.C. § 2511: Law enforcement party/consent interception exception Legal fact
Federal law provides it is not unlawful under that chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. Source text: "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication , where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."
Source
Ninth Circuit affirmed on merits, did not reach qualified immunity Legal fact
On appeal from summary judgment for defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, the Ninth Circuit reached the merits and affirmed on the basis that the pretrial telephone restriction violated none of Valdez's constitutional rights: Alaska's "reasonable access" statute created no liberty interest, and the restriction was reasonably related to the legitimate interest of protecting officers arresting at-large co-conspirators, so it was not punishment. Source text: "Accordingly, we consider the merits of Valdez's claims and conclude that the defendants did not violate any of his constitutional rights. We do not reach the qualified immunity issue."
Hudson v. Palmer: property destruction during shakedown does not violate due process where postdeprivation remedy exists Legal fact
In Hudson v. Palmer, the Supreme Court held that even if a prisoner's personal property was intentionally destroyed during a shakedown search, the destruction did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Commonwealth of Virginia provided an adequate postdeprivation remedy.
David Wilson v. State explains Burgeson v. State on hidden tape recording Legal fact
Later treatment: David Wilson v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia) explained Burgeson v. State (Ga. 1996) regarding a hidden tape recording.
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(c) prohibits inmate possession of telecommunications devices Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(c) makes it unlawful for an inmate to possess a telecommunications device, among other listed items, without the authorization of the warden or superintendent or his or her designee.
GDC SOP 215.23: approved cell phones provided only to authorized Work Release Residents Policy
GDC SOP 215.23 states that all approved cellular phones will be provided by GDC to authorized Work Release Residents only, and that only those individuals approved for visitation with the offender will be allowed to correspond with the offender via the GDC-approved cellular device.
GDC Board April 2025 minutes: Commissioner Oliver discussed Cell Phone Jamming Policy
GDC Board of Corrections minutes for the April 2025 meeting record that Commissioner Oliver discussed Cell Phone Jamming. Source text: "... regarding [Cell] [Phone] Jamming. Commissioner Oliver discussed the Fiscal Year 2025 and 2026 Budget Update."
HB 1230 enforcement limited to imminent threat or law violation Legal fact
HB 1230 exempts certain operators of unmanned aircraft systems and only permits officers to enforce certain provisions when there is an imminent threat to public safety or violation of state or federal law.
Georgia Board of Corrections rule prohibits unauthorized telephone use Policy
A Georgia Board of Corrections disciplinary rule lists as a violation 'Use of any telephone without the prior specific knowledge and permission of a staff member.'
18 U.S.C. § 1791: 'Prohibited object' includes commercial mobile service phones Legal fact
18 U.S.C. § 1791 defines 'prohibited object' to include 'a phone or other device used by a user of commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))) in connection with such service.'
Source
18 U.S.C. § 2511: Private party/consent interception exception with criminal-purpose caveat Legal fact
Federal law provides it is not unlawful under that chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Source text: "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation"
Source
Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-225) Finding
Public Law 111-225, titled the 'Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010', amended Section 1791 of title 18, United States Code, in a section titled 'Wireless Devices in Prison.'
Gilbert Alexander Hill v. State follows Maddox v. State Legal fact
Later treatment: Gilbert Alexander Hill v. State (Ga. Ct. App.) followed Maddox v. State (Ga. App.), which overruled an earlier decision on other grounds.
Inmate possession penalty under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(1) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(1) makes an inmate's violation of subsection (c) a felony punishable by one to five years' imprisonment, except that possession of a telecommunications device by an inmate held on a misdemeanor arrest or conviction is treated as a misdemeanor.
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 125-3-2-.04 defines communication devices as contraband Legal fact
Georgia Board of Corrections Rule 125-3-2-.04 defines as contraband, subject to disciplinary action, an apparatus associated with a device that enables, or may be used to enable, communication with a person outside a place of incarceration, including a telephone, cellular telephone, personal digital assistant, transmitting radio, or computer connected or capable of being connected to a computer network, by wireless or other technology, or otherwise capable of communicating with a person or device outside a place of incarceration.
GDC Board watched video of Commissioner Oliver at D.C. cell phone jamming press conference Policy
GDC Board of Corrections minutes record that the Board watched a video clip from Senator Cotton's X (Twitter) account showing GDC Commissioner Oliver having participated in a press conference in Washington D.C. regarding Cell Phone Jamming. Source text: "Board watched a brief video clip from Senator Cotton's X (Twitter) wherein Commissioner Oliver had participated in a press conference in Washington D.C. regarding Cell Phone Jamming."
HB 1230 revises 400-foot ticketed event exemption Legal fact
HB 1230 also revises exemptions from the prohibited operation of an unmanned aircraft system within 400 feet of a ticketed event.
FCC rule requires disabling contraband wireless devices within two business days Legal fact
Under the FCC's contraband wireless device rule, a licensee must, within two business days of receipt of a qualifying request, disable the contraband wireless device from using the wireless provider's network, if the request contains the required information and no device-identifying error prevents disabling.
18 U.S.C. § 1791: Contraband cell phone in federal prison punishable by up to one year Legal fact
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1791, providing or possessing a contraband cell phone in a federal prison is punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or a fine, or both.
Source
18 U.S.C. § 2510: Telephone instrument exclusion from 'device' definition Legal fact
Federal law excludes from the definition of "electronic, mechanical, or other device" a telephone instrument being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties. Source text: "and used in the ordinary course of its business; or (ii) being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties;"
Antenor v. State of Alaska distinguished Valdez Legal fact
Later treatment: Antenor v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Corrections (Alaska) distinguished Valdez v. Rosenbaum (9th Cir.). Source text: "segregation, not with call charges. 302 F.3d 1039, 1042-45 (9th Cir. 2002)."
U.S. v. Davis and Newsome: Recorded telephone conversations admissible; convictions affirmed Legal fact
In United States v. Davis and Newsome, the Eleventh Circuit rejected appellants' claims regarding the admission of recorded telephone conversations, affirming their convictions on that issue. The court also rejected claims regarding the jury charge and proof of value of stolen merchandise, and held appellants procedurally barred from challenging the multiplicity of their convictions.
Furnishing penalty under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(2) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(2) makes a violation of subsection (b) by any person (other than certain department employees/contractors covered by paragraph (4)) a felony punishable by a ten-year term of imprisonment.
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 125-3-2-.04: unauthorized telephone use is a disciplinary violation Legal fact
Georgia Board of Corrections Rule 125-3-2-.04 lists as a disciplinary violation pertaining to policy and procedures the 'Use of any telephone without the prior specific knowledge and permission of a staff member.'
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-11: Board rulemaking authority over penal system Legal fact
The Board of Corrections is authorized to adopt rules and regulations governing the transaction of business of the penal system by the department and the commissioner and the administration of the affairs of the penal system in institutions under its authority.
FCC requires DCFO recognition letter signed by state attorney general or BOP Regional Director Legal fact
Under the FCC's contraband wireless device rule, authorized DCFOs seeking to be recognized on the Commission's DCFO list must send a letter to the Commission's Contraband Ombudsperson signed by the relevant state attorney general or the relevant Bureau of Prisons Regional Director.
FCC received submissions that IPCS rate caps were set too low for security tools Finding
After the IPCS Order became effective, the Commission received various record submissions which suggested that the adopted rate caps were set too low to ensure sufficient funding for necessary safety and security tools such as call monitoring or recording and to account for correctional facility costs.
Source
U.S. v. Davis and Newsome: Consent exception to federal wiretap act satisfied by circumstantial proof Legal fact
The Eleventh Circuit held recorded calls between a defendant and an FBI informant were admissible under the federal wiretap act's consent exception because circumstantial evidence sufficed to prove the informant's consent without his testimony; it affirmed the convictions but remanded to vacate a multiplicitous sentence.
Department employee/contractor penalty under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(4) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(d)(4) provides that a department employee or contractor who commits or attempts to commit a violation of subsection (b) or (b.1) is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment.
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 125-3-2-.04: Commissioner categorizes offenses to set punishment limits Legal fact
Georgia Board of Corrections Rule 125-3-2-.04 provides that the Commissioner of the Board of Corrections will issue separate instructions to identify each listed violation as a low, moderate, high, or greatest infraction, and that such categorization establishes the limits of assessable punishments as defined in Rule .08.
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-11: Board rules on inmate assignment and treatment Legal fact
The Board of Corrections shall adopt rules governing the assignment, housing, working, feeding, clothing, treatment, discipline, rehabilitation, training, and hospitalization of all inmates coming under its custody.
FCC: cell jammer use is a violation of federal law Legal fact
The FCC's public notice 'Jamming Cell Phones and GPS Equipment is Against the Law' states that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi, and that consumers cannot legally use jammers within the United States, nor can retailers lawfully sell them.
FCC 21-82: Definition of Designated Correctional Facility Official (DCFO) Legal fact
The FCC's Second Report and Order defines a Designated Correctional Facility Official (DCFO) as an official of the state, local, or Federal government responsible for administration and oversight of the relevant correctional facility where a contraband wireless device is located.
FCC definition of Incarcerated People's Communications Service (IPCS) Legal fact
The FCC's rules define Incarcerated People's Communications Service (IPCS) to include telephone service, interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP, interoperable video conferencing, and any audio or video communications service used by Incarcerated People to communicate with individuals outside the Facility where they are held.
Van Poyck: No objectively reasonable privacy expectation in outbound prison calls Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit held that no prisoner has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his outbound telephone calls from prison, so the Fourth Amendment is not triggered by the routine taping of such calls.
Legislative history of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18 Legal fact
The Code history line for O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18 lists the following enacting and amending Acts: Ga. L. 1976, p. 1506, § 2; Ga. L. 1984, p. 593, § 1; Ga. L. 2008, p. 533, § 1/SB 366; Ga. L. 2016, p. 811, § 8/HB 874; Ga. L. 2017, p. 673, § 3-3/SB 149; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1112, § 42/SB 365; Ga. L. 2019, p. 293, § 1/SB 6; Ga. L. 2020, p. 493, § 42/SB 429; Ga. L. 2024, p. 514, § 1/SB 159, effective July 1, 2024.
GDC SOP 209.01: $100 administrative processing fee for cell phone possession Policy
GDC SOP 209.01, Offender Discipline, states that an offender found guilty of the offense of Possession of a Cell Phone shall be charged an administrative processing fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
Terrell v. State: court left undecided whether warden-authorization clause applies to all categories Legal fact
In Terrell v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia expressly left undecided ('pretermitting') whether the warden's-authorization clause of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18 applies to only some rather than all of the categories of items described in the statute. Source text: "Pretermitting the question whether a warden's authorization is required for only some rather than all of the categories described in the statute"
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-11: rules subject to Georgia Administrative Procedure Act Legal fact
All rules and regulations the Board of Corrections adopts under O.C.G.A. § 42-2-11 must be adopted, established, promulgated, amended, repealed, filed, and published in accordance with the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, Title 50, Chapter 13.
FCC: jammer operation may result in penalties, seizure, and imprisonment Legal fact
The FCC's public notice 'Jamming Cell Phones and GPS Equipment is Against the Law' states that operation of a jammer in the United States is illegal and may subject a person to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment, and that the FCC strictly prohibits the use, marketing, manufacture, and sale of jammers.
FCC 21-82: BOP conducted micro-jamming pilot tests (2018, 2019) Case detail
The FCC's Second Report and Order notes that the Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted pilot tests of micro-jamming technology, citing Department of Justice press releases 'Prison Test Shows Micro-Jamming May Counter Criminal Threat of Contraband Cell Phones' (June 15, 2018) and 'Bureau of Prisons Tests Micro-Jamming Technology in South Carolina Prison to Prevent Contraband Cell Phones' (April 12, 2019).
In re Yahoo Mail Litigation explained United States v. Van Poyck on Wiretap Act consent Legal fact
Later treatment: In re Yahoo Mail Litigation (N.D. Cal.) explained United States v. Van Poyck (9th Cir.). Source text: "Consent to an interception under the Wiretap Act may be either explicit or implied, but it must be actual. See United States v. Poyck, 77 F.3d 285, 292 (9th Cir.1996)"
Fourth Circuit rejects Title III law-enforcement exception for recording judges' calls (Abraham v. County of Greenville) Legal fact
The Fourth Circuit rejected a county's reliance on Title III's law-enforcement exception (18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii)) for recording telephone calls made from offices in its Detention Center, stating that monitoring the judges' calls was not part of the 'ordinary course' of the County's law enforcement duties and that the County did not have an established policy of monitoring those calls.
Van Poyck: Inmate consented to taping via signed form and posted signs Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the inmate consented to the taping of his prison phone calls because he signed a consent form warning of monitoring and taping and because signs above the phones stated that use of the phones constituted consent to monitoring.
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f) prohibits unlawful drone operation over prisons Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f) makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally operate, or allow another to operate from his or her property, an unmanned aircraft system to violate subsection (b) or (b.1), to photograph or record a place of incarceration for purposes of committing a criminal offense, or to fly above a place of incarceration.
GDC SOP 209.01: $4 standard administrative fee per Disciplinary Report Policy
GDC SOP 209.01 states that a standard administrative/processing fee of four dollars ($4.00) for each Disciplinary Report issued is to be charged to the offender's account after a guilty finding or Negotiated Plea by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer and approval of the finding by the Warden/Superintendent.
Terrell v. State: three convictions affirmed, no merger, venue proved Legal fact
The Court of Appeals affirmed three convictions under former OCGA § 42-5-18 (b): the evidence sufficed (including, pretermitting whether warden authorization applies to every category, circumstantial evidence excluding authorization) and venue was proved; and the counts did not merge because the statute separately criminalizes obtaining distinct categories of items listed in different clauses. Source text: "The statute's plain language separately criminalizes the obtaining or procuring of these distinct items."
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2: Board of Corrections excluded from APA 'agency' definition Legal fact
The Georgia Administrative Procedure Act's definition of 'agency' expressly excludes the Board of Corrections and its penal institutions from the chapter's general coverage.
Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 (S. 1137) introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton Legal fact
S. 1137, titled the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025, was introduced in the 119th Congress by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas.
FCC 21-82: Definition of Contraband Interdiction System (CIS) Legal fact
The FCC's final rule defines a Contraband Interdiction System (CIS) as any system comprised of one or more stations used only at a permanent correctional facility authorized to operate such systems, designed exclusively to prevent transmissions to or from contraband wireless devices within the facility's boundaries and/or to obtain identifying information from such devices.
Abraham v. County of Greenville: law-enforcement exception has no good-faith component Legal fact
In a Title III civil suit by state judges whose office phones in the county Detention Center were recorded, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the judges, holding that the law-enforcement exception did not apply as a matter of law because recording the judges was not in the ordinary course of the County's law-enforcement duties, and that the exception has no good-faith component.
Drones operated in violation of § 42-5-18(f) declared contraband Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f)(4) declares unmanned aircraft systems operated in violation of subsection (f) to be contraband, subject to seizure, removal, destruction, or disposal by law enforcement at the owner's expense.
GDC SOP 227.01: facilities must provide reasonable and equitable telephone access Policy
GDC SOP 227.01, Offender Access to Telephones, states that each facility shall provide offenders with reasonable and equitable access to telephones, and that the Warden or Superintendent shall determine the appropriate supervision of offender telephone calls in a manner consistent with the mission of the facility.
Webb v. State: circumstantial evidence of marijuana in locked locker sufficient Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a conviction for possession of drugs by an inmate, holding that circumstantial evidence that marijuana was found hidden in the defendant's locked personal locker, accessible only by the defendant's combination or a master key held by prison officials, was sufficient to support the verdict despite the defendant's claim that his cellmate or the searching officers had equal access and could have planted the drugs. Source text: "As a matter of law, this circumstantial evidence supports the jury's conclusion that Webb was in possession of the marijuana. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Webb guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense as charged."
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-8: commissioner directs Board administrative activities Legal fact
The commissioner of corrections directs and supervises all the administrative activities of the Board of Corrections and attends all meetings of the Board.
S. 1137 introduced March 26, 2025, in first stage of legislative process Legal fact
The Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 bill is in the first stage of the legislative process; it was introduced into Congress on March 26, 2025, and will typically be considered by committee next before possibly being sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.
FCC 21-82: DCFO requirements differ for government-run vs. privately-run facilities Legal fact
The FCC's final rule provides that in government-run correctional facilities, the DCFO must be, at minimum, the official with responsibility for oversight of the relevant facility (e.g., the warden) or a higher ranking official; in privately-run correctional facilities, the DCFO must be a government official with responsibility for oversight of the facility's performance through contract.
S.1137 Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 introduced by Sen. Cotton Legal fact
S.1137, the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 (119th Congress), is sponsored by "Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] (Introduced 03/26/2025)" and was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Source text: "Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] (Introduced 03/26/2025) Committees: Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation"
Stored value card prohibition under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(e) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(e) makes it unlawful for an inmate to possess a stored value card, its account number, or its PIN, and unlawful for any person to obtain, procure, or give an inmate a stored value card, its account number, or its PIN, with violation punished as a felony with a sentence of one to ten years unless the judge imposes a misdemeanor sentence under Code Section 17-10-5.
GDC SOP 227.01: Call Allow List capped at 20 persons Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that each offender will submit a phone list, or Diagnostic/Permanent Offender Call Allow List ('Call Allow List'), and Attorney Telephone Request Form made up of a maximum of twenty (20) persons.
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-8: commissioner's additional duties Legal fact
The commissioner of corrections shall perform other duties and functions necessary or desirable to carry out the intent of the chapter, and which the commissioner may be directed to perform by the Board.
Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 (H.R. 2350) introduced by Rep. David Kustoff Legal fact
H.R. 2350, titled the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025, was introduced in the 119th Congress by Representative David Kustoff of Tennessee.
FCC 21-82: CIS self-certification requires criminalized contraband device possession Legal fact
The FCC's Second Report and Order (FCC 21-82) requires CIS self-certifications to demonstrate that a device is used in violation of state or federal criminal statutes, and states that CIS providers at correctional facilities in states where possession or use of contraband devices has not been criminalized in the penal code will not be eligible to make the self-certification required for a qualifying disabling request.
H.R.2350 Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 introduced by Rep. Kustoff Legal fact
H.R.2350, the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 (119th Congress), is sponsored by "Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8] (Introduced 03/26/2025)" and was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Source text: "Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8] (Introduced 03/26/2025) Committees: House - Energy and Commerce"
People v. Watson followed Boykins-White v. State (Ga. App.) on Strickland diligence Legal fact
Later treatment: People v. Watson (Ill. App. Ct.) followed Boykins-White v. State (Ga. App.). Source text: "A defense attorney's seeking of advice from fellow professionals suggests care and diligence that are relevant to the Strickland inquiry. See, e.g., Boykins White v. State, 305 Ga.App. 827, 701 S.E.2d 221, 226 (2010)."
Valdez v. Rosenbaum: one legal call per day in administrative segregation did not violate substantive due process Legal fact
In Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1042-43, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002), restricting telephone access of a detainee placed in administrative segregation to one legal telephone call per day did not violate the plaintiff's substantive due process rights.
Law enforcement mitigation measures against drones under § 42-5-18(f)(5) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f)(5) provides that a law enforcement officer or agency may take reasonable and necessary mitigation measures against an unmanned aircraft system operating over a place of incarceration for the purposes of committing a criminal offense.
GDC SOP 227.01: calls restricted to Call Allow List; cell numbers allowed, remote forwarding not Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that only calls to phone numbers on the offender's Call Allow List or Attorney Telephone Request Form can be placed through the Offender Phone System; calls to cell phone numbers are allowed and shall be listed on the approved phone list; and calls to remote forwarding numbers are not allowed.
Culbertson v. State: judgments reversed for refusal to charge on defendant's failure to testify Legal fact
On appeal from convictions for aggravated assault on correctional officers and possession of a weapon by an inmate, the Court of Appeals rejected the challenge to the directed-verdict denial on the weapon count (a 'water bug' used to boil liquid thrown at officers could be found a weapon under OCGA § 42-5-18(b)), but reversed the judgments because the trial court refused a written request to charge that the defendant's failure to testify raises no presumption against him. Source text: "We do not find the jury's apparent conclusion that the ['water bug'] was a weapon even [though not thrown itself] unreasonable under these circumstances."
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62: telephone interception is a crime Legal fact
It is a crime in Georgia for any person intentionally and secretly to intercept the contents of a message sent by telephone by use of any device, instrument, or apparatus.
FCC: jammers not permitted under Commission rules Legal fact
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities states that because radio signal jammers are used to willfully interfere with radio communications of licensed or authorized stations, jammers are not permitted under the Commission's rules.
FCI Jesup handbook: Only one inmate telephone available in housing units during work hours Policy
FCI Jesup's inmate handbook states that only one inmate telephone is available in the housing units during work hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, as stated in P.S. 5264.08, Telephone Regulations for Inmates, dated January 24, 2008.
Source
FCC: Jamming devices generally illegal under 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a(b) and 333 Legal fact
The FCC's "Jammer Enforcement" page states "Under 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a(b) and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, and the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations, it is generally illegal (with few exceptions) to operate, manufacture, market, sell, import, distribute, or ship a radiofrequency (RF) jamming device designed to interfere with authorized radio communications such as those involving cell phones, GPS, Wi-Fi, police radar".
Commonwealth v. Miller followed United States v. Van Poyck on mail monitoring Legal fact
Later treatment: Commonwealth v. Miller (Mass.) followed United States v. Van Poyck (9th Cir.). Source text: "77 F.3d 285, 290 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996). Here, the defendant does not even argue that he subjectively believed that his mail would not be monitored by prison personnel"
Valdez v. Rosenbaum: telephone-access restrictions upheld if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests Legal fact
In Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit held that restrictions on telephone access in a state jail do not violate a pretrial detainee's constitutional rights if the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Authorized drone mitigation methods under § 42-5-18(f)(5) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f)(5) authorizes mitigation measures that include, but are not limited to, methods which detect, track, and identify unmanned aircraft systems, or intercepting, disabling, neutralizing, or disrupting an unmanned aircraft system through legal and safe methods including jamming, hacking, or physical capture.
GDC SOP 227.01: Call Monitoring Access limited to Warden, Superintendent, and designees Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that Call Monitoring Access, allowing monitoring of live and recorded calls, is limited to the Warden and the Superintendent and their designees at each facility, and that it is prohibited for any staff to monitor live or recorded calls without authorization.
Georgia Procurement Registry: Inmate Telephone Service solicitation awarded FY2016 Policy
The Georgia Procurement Registry records the 'Inmate Telephone Service' solicitation (Event ID 46700-GDC0000669), issued by the Department of Corrections, with Event Status 'Awarded,' Purchase Type 'Agency Contract,' for Fiscal Year 2016. Source text: "46700-GDC0000669 RFP Awarded Agency Contract Info Technology state 2016 46700 CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF"
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2)(A): recording incarcerated persons not unlawful Legal fact
Georgia's eavesdropping statute makes it not unlawful to use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or other facility where persons charged with or convicted of a crime are incarcerated, provided such equipment is not used while the prisoner discusses his or her case with his or her attorney.
FCC: manufacture, sale, operation of jammers prohibited except for federal use Legal fact
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities states that the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale, or operation of radio signal jamming devices within the United States is prohibited, except for the sale to or use by the Federal Government.
FCC Third FNPRM (Sept 2025): Seeks to authorize non-federal jamming in correctional facilities for first time Legal fact
The FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on contraband wireless devices states that the Commission seeks to build a record on a proposed regulatory framework to authorize, for the first time, non-federal operation of radio frequency jamming solutions in the limited context of correctional facilities.
Source
FCC: Jammer prohibitions do not apply to federal agencies Legal fact
The FCC's "Jammer Enforcement" page states "The federal government's use of spectrum is not regulated by the FCC, so our jammer prohibitions do not apply to use by federal agencies."
Overton v. Bazzetta: visitation restrictions bear rational relation to penological interests Legal fact
The Supreme Court held that Michigan's prison visitation regulations, including the restriction limiting visitors, bear a rational relation to legitimate penological interests and do not violate the First, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, reversing the Sixth Circuit. Source text: "Having determined that each of the challenged regulations bears a rational relationship to a legitimate penological interest, we consider whether inmates have alternative means of exercising the constitutional right they seek to assert."
United States v. Van Poyck: no reasonable expectation of privacy in outbound prisoner telephone calls Legal fact
In United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285, 290-91 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit stated that '[N]o prisoner should reasonably expect privacy in his outbound telephone calls.'
Reasonable suspicion requirement for drone mitigation under § 42-5-18(f)(6) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f)(6) limits officers to act under the mitigation-measures subsection only if there is reasonable suspicion that the unmanned aircraft system operating above a place of incarceration is involved in criminal activity, poses an imminent threat to public safety, or is otherwise in violation of state or federal law.
GDC SOP 227.01: all calls auto-recorded except attorney and Indigent Defense Council lines Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that the offender telephone system automatically records all offender calls unless a number has been blocked for recording purposes, and that calls placed to the offender's Attorney and to the Indigent Defense Council are entitled to attorney-client confidentiality and will not be recorded or monitored if the offender designated the number as that of their Attorney on the Attorney Telephone Request Form.
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66: one-party consent exception to eavesdropping Legal fact
Georgia law provides that nothing in the eavesdropping statute shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.
GEO Group petitioned FCC for forbearance to use jammers in correctional facilities Case detail
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that the GEO Group filed a petition seeking forbearance from application or enforcement of Sections 302, 303, 333 of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.807 of the Commission's rules to allow state and local correctional authorities and correctional facility operators to utilize radio frequency jamming devices to prevent the use of wireless devices in correctional facilities.
FCC 25-65: Proposal to deauthorize contraband device operation to allow jamming without violating section 333 Legal fact
The FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to address the prohibition in section 333 by deauthorizing subscriber operation of contraband wireless devices located within a correctional facility, and to amend its rules and license rights such that operations in this context would not be authorized by the Commission within the meaning of section 333, which it believes would allow DOCs to employ jamming solutions without violating section 333.
FCC: State and local authorities not authorized to operate jammers without federal oversight Legal fact
The FCC's "Jammer Enforcement" page states "Generally, state and local authorities are not authorized to operate RF jamming equipment without oversight and authorization by an appropriate federal law enforcement agency or the Department of Homeland Security."
Overton: letter and telephone as alternative means to in-person visitation Legal fact
In discussing alternative means of exercising the associational right, the Supreme Court stated that inmates barred from all visitation after substance-abuse violations, and other inmates, may still communicate with persons outside the prison by letter and telephone, as an alternative to in-person visitation. Source text: "Although this option is not available to inmates barred all visitation after two violations, they and other inmates may communicate with persons outside the prison by letter and telephone."
Benzel v. Grammer: prisoner has no right to unlimited telephone use Legal fact
In Benzel v. Grammer, 869 F.2d 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 1989), the Eighth Circuit stated that '[a] prisoner has no right to unlimited telephone use.'
Exemptions from drone prohibition under § 42-5-18(f)(7) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(f)(7) exempts from the subsection the operation of an unmanned aircraft system by an operator in compliance with federal regulations or by a peace officer operating such system for a law enforcement or public safety purpose, and an employee of a water, sewer, electrical, telephone, cable, or other regulated employment.
GDC SOP 227.01: facilities must post written notice that calls may be monitored or recorded Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that it is the responsibility of each facility to ensure offenders are aware that telephone calls may be monitored or recorded; the Warden or Superintendent of every facility must inform the entire offender population in writing that telephone calls may be monitored or recorded, and this notice must be posted by each offender telephone.
Rogers v. State: recorded jail call admissible, no secret interception Legal fact
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a recorded jail call was admissible and not a violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(4) because there was no secret interception, since notice was given in an inmate handbook, on signs at each telephone, and a recorded warning message played before each call stating that calls could be recorded.
FCC defines managed access systems Finding
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking describes managed access systems as micro-cellular, private networks that analyze transmissions to and from wireless devices to determine whether the device is authorized or unauthorized for purposes of accessing public carrier networks.
FCC 25-65: Proposed definition of 'jamming solution' Legal fact
The FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to define 'jamming solution' as 'the deployment of RF transmitter(s) within a correctional facility to prevent contraband wireless devices from establishing or maintaining a connection with a network.'
FCC archived jamming consumer page no longer maintained Methodology note
The FCC's archived "Jamming Cell Phones and GPS Equipment is Against the Law" consumer page states "This page has been archived and is no longer actively maintained by the FCC."
Overton upheld Michigan visitation restrictions under Turner; no Eighth Amendment violation Legal fact
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and upheld Michigan's prison visitation restrictions (limits on child visitors and former inmates, and a two-year visitation ban after two substance-abuse violations) as applied to noncontact visits. It held that they bear a rational relation to legitimate penological interests under Turner v. Safley and that the substance-abuse ban did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Source text: "need not attempt to explore or define the asserted right of association at any length or determine the extent to which it survives incarceration because the challenged regulations bear a rational relation to legitimate penological interests. This suffices to sustain the regulation in question."
Webb v. Department of Justice (3d Cir. 2024) explained Overton v. Bazzetta Legal fact
The Third Circuit's 2024 decision in Webb v. Department of Justice (F.4th) explained the Supreme Court's decision in Overton v. Bazzetta, including the Court's statement 'We do not hold, and we do not' extinguish associational rights altogether.
Definition of unmanned aircraft system under § 42-5-18(a) Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(a) defines 'Unmanned aircraft system' as having the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 6-1-4.
GDC SOP 227.01: monitoring triggered by security concerns or random selection Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that monitoring may be conducted if the offender is suspected of, is attempting to, or is in the process of compromising the safety, security, or integrity of the facility, staff, another offender, or the general public, and that calls may also be selected randomly for monitoring.
Rogers v. State: § 16-11-62(2)(A) express exception for recording incarcerated persons Legal fact
The Supreme Court of Georgia stated that O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2)(A) contains an express exception to the surveillance prohibitions in O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62 through 16-11-67 for recording the activities of a person incarcerated in a jail, correctional institution, or other facility holding a person charged with or convicted of a crime, quoting its own earlier statement in Burgeson v. State.
FCC: jammers cannot differentiate contraband from legitimate devices including 911 calls Finding
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that when used to disrupt wireless devices, radio signal jammers cannot differentiate between contraband devices and legitimate devices, including devices making 911 calls.
FCC 25-65: Managed access system allows authorized devices while terminating unauthorized transmissions Legal fact
The FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that unlike a jamming solution, a managed access system allows authorized devices and emergency communications to connect with the wireless network, while transmissions to or from unauthorized devices are ultimately terminated.
FCC 25-65: Proposal to deauthorize contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities Legal fact
In its Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (adopted September 30, 2025), the FCC proposed to address the Section 333 interference prohibition by deauthorizing subscriber operation of contraband wireless devices located within a correctional facility, by amending its rules and license rights so such operations would not be authorized by the Commission within the meaning of section 333. Source text: "Today, we propose to address the prohibition in section 333 by deauthorizing subscriber operation of contraband wireless devices located within a correctional facility. Specifically, we propose to amend our rules and the rights granted under licenses we have issued, such that operations in this specific context would not be authorized by the Commission within the meaning of section 333."
Turner v. Safley: reasonable-relationship standard for prison regulations Legal fact
The Supreme Court held that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Source text: "If Pell, Jones, and Bell have not already resolved the question posed in Martinez, we resolve it now: when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."
Nielsen v. Thornell (9th Cir. 2024) explained Overton v. Bazzetta Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit's 2024 decision in Nielsen v. Thornell (F.4th) explained the Supreme Court's decision in Overton v. Bazzetta, noting that 'Overton still grounded its analysis' in the relevant constitutional framework.
County jail contraband provision lacks specific cell phone language Legal fact
O.C.G.A. § 42-4-13, governing county/municipal jails, has no provision specifically naming telecommunications devices or cell phones; instead subsection (e) makes it unlawful for any person to obtain, procure for, or give to an inmate, or bring within the jail's guard lines, 'any other article or item' without the jailer's or a law enforcement officer's knowledge and consent, a misdemeanor.
GDC SOP 227.01: outside agency monitoring requests routed through Warden to Assistant Commissioner Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that all requests from outside agencies (e.g., the FBI, the GBI, other law enforcement agencies) to monitor offender calls must be made in writing to the Warden/Superintendent of the facility housing the offender with detailed information regarding why the request is being made; the Warden forwards this information to the Director, Field Operations, who forwards the request to the Assistant Commissioner, Facilities Division for review and authorization. The Office of Professional Standards has authorization to monitor offender calls.
Rogers v. State: recorded jail call with attorney three-way connection admissible Legal fact
On direct appeal from murder convictions, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a recorded jail telephone call (including a three-way connection to an attorney's office) was admissible: it was not privileged because it was not confidential and Rogers had no reasonable expectation of privacy given the notice of recording, and it did not violate OCGA § 16-11-62(4) because the interception was not done secretly.
FCC: jammers block all wireless communications on affected spectrum bands Finding
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that radio signal jammers block all wireless communications on affected spectrum bands.
S. 1047 (118th Congress): Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2023 Finding
S. 1047, titled the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2023, was a bill in the 118th Congress to provide that the FCC may not prevent a State or Federal correctional facility from utilizing jamming equipment.
FCC 25-65: Tentative conclusion of authority under section 303 of Communications Act Legal fact
In its Third FNPRM (adopted September 30, 2025), the FCC tentatively concluded that it has authority to propose the deauthorization approach under section 303 of the Communications Act. Source text: "We tentatively conclude that we have the authority to propose this approach pursuant to section 303 of the Act, which provides the Commission with expansive powers and duties to make rules governing wireless operations that are required by the public convenience, interest, or necessity."
Turner v. Safley rejected strict scrutiny; upheld correspondence rule, struck marriage restriction Legal fact
The Supreme Court rejected strict scrutiny and held that a prison regulation that impinges on inmates' constitutional rights is valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; applying that standard it upheld Missouri's inmate-to-inmate correspondence rule and struck down its marriage restriction. Source text: "we resolve it now: when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."
In re Pharmatrak followed Abraham v. County of Greenville on Title III intent Legal fact
The First Circuit's 2003 decision in In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation (F.3d) followed the Fourth Circuit's decision in Abraham v. County of Greenville, 237 F.3d 386, 391-92 (4th Cir. 2001), which held that a jury instruction stating 'defendant's motive is not relevant' to the determination of intent under § 2511 was proper.
GDC reserves right to read communications on its servers Policy
A GDC wireless-devices policy states that GDC reserves the right to investigate, retrieve and read any communication or data stored on its own servers, and that which is composed, transmitted or received through voice services and online connections.
GDC SOP 227.01: 15-minute call limit; 30-minute minimum for TTY, Interpreting Phone Service, and VRS Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that phone systems in all facilities (with the exception of TTY Phones, Interpreting Phone Service, and VRS) shall be programmed with a 15-minute maximum limit on all calls, with phones automatically cutting off when the time limit is reached; offenders using TTY, Interpreting Phone Service, and VRS devices will be allowed extra time of at least 30 minutes to complete calls.
Burgeson v. State: § 16-11-62(2) express exception for recording incarcerated persons Legal fact
The Supreme Court of Georgia held in Burgeson v. State that O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2) contains an express exception for recording the activities of a person incarcerated in a jail, correctional institution, or other facility holding a person charged with or convicted of a crime.
Section 705 of Communications Act prohibits divulging interstate communications Legal fact
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that Section 705 of the Communications Act generally prohibits, except as authorized under Chapter 119 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, any person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio from divulging or publishing the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect or meaning thereof to another person other than through authorized channels.
S. 1047 sponsored by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) Legal fact
The Cellphone Jamming Reform Act's Senate version was sponsored by Tom Cotton, who GovTrack lists as Junior Senator for Arkansas.
FCC 25-65: Jamming by non-federal corrections officials not currently allowed Legal fact
The FCC's Third FNPRM (adopted September 30, 2025) states that the Commission does not currently allow the use of jamming technologies by non-federal corrections officials because those solutions willfully interfere, in violation of section 333, with radio communications of stations licensed or authorized by the Commission. Source text: "The Commission does not currently allow the use of jamming technologies by non-federal corrections officials because these solutions willfully interfere, in violation of section 333, with radio communications of stations licensed or authorized by the Commission."
Benzel v. Grammer: three-person calling list for segregated inmates upheld Legal fact
The Eighth Circuit held that a Nebraska prison policy restricting segregated-unit inmates to calling only three listed, non-attorney individuals did not violate the inmate's First Amendment or Equal Protection rights, reversing the district court's injunction and damages award. Source text: "After considering all pertinent factors, we conclude this policy does not violate appellant's rights under either the first amendment or the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment."
Pope v. Hightower: prison telephone-access restriction rationally connected to legitimate governmental objective Legal fact
In Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382, 1385 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh Circuit held that a prison's restriction on telephone access had a rational connection to a legitimate governmental objective.
GDC policy does not restrict warden's contraband prevention duty Policy
A GDC wireless-devices policy states that the procedure does not restrict the responsibility of the Warden or Superintendent to prevent the introduction of contraband into the facility.
GDC SOP 227.01: emergency phone system disablement authority (24/48 hours, longer with approval) Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that in the event of an emergency, the Warden or Superintendent has authority to disable the Offender Phone System at his or her facility for up to 24 hours; with written approval of the Regional Director, the system may be disabled for up to 48 hours; and the Warden must receive written approval of the Director, Field Operations to disable the system for a period in excess of 48 hours.
Maddox v. State: evidence sufficient for constructive possession, jury instruction properly refused Legal fact
Affirming drug-possession convictions, the whole Court of Appeals held the evidence sufficient for constructive possession and held the trial court properly refused an instruction that the State must prove sole constructive possession when an uncharged occupant had equal access; it overruled Reid v. State and following cases in part to the extent they held otherwise. Source text: "For the reasons set forth below, we now conclude there is no reasonable basis for this holding, and overrule Reid in part to the extent it adopted this holding."
Burgeson v. State: patrol car recording did not violate wiretap statutes Legal fact
On direct appeal from murder convictions, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a hidden recording of the defendant's post-arrest conversation in the back seat of a patrol car did not violate Title III or Georgia's wiretapping statutes, because a person in a police car, like one in a jail cell, has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
FCC seeks comment on managed access system compliance with Section 705 Finding
The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that it seeks comment on the extent to which providers or operators of managed access or detection systems comply with Section 705 if they divulge or publish the existence of a communication for the purpose of operating the system, and whether such providers or operators are entitled to receive communications under Section 705.
H.R. 1954 (116th Congress): Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2019 Finding
H.R. 1954, titled the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2019, was a bill in the 116th Congress to provide that the FCC may not prevent a State or Federal correctional facility from utilizing jamming equipment.
Benzel v. Grammer: no right to unlimited telephone use Legal fact
The Eighth Circuit stated that a prisoner has no right to unlimited telephone use, citing the Fifth Circuit's decision in Lopez v. Reyes. Source text: "A prisoner has no right to unlimited telephone use. See Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir.1982)."
Human Rights Defense Center v. Uttecht (9th Cir. 2025) applied Turner v. Safley Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit's 2025 decision in Human Rights Defense Center, Inc. v. Uttecht applied the Supreme Court's Turner v. Safley standard, which requires that prison regulations be reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.
Carr led 31-state coalition urging Congress to pass cell phone jamming legislation Case detail
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr led a bipartisan coalition of 31 state attorneys general urging Congress to pass H.R. 2350 and S. 1137, legislation that would allow states to deploy cell phone jamming technology in prisons and jails, introduced by Tennessee Congressman David Kustoff.
GDC SOP 227.01: phone restrictions exempt attorney, PREA Hotline, and ADA calls Policy
GDC SOP 227.01 states that disciplinary infractions related to telephone use may result in restriction of telephone privileges in addition to other sanctions, but such restrictions shall not apply to calls related specifically to access to the offender's Attorney, the PREA Hotline, or ADA issues; and that offenders under investigation for serious criminal offenses (e.g., murder, homicide, rape, assault on staff or offenders, introduction of contraband) may have their phone privileges suspended until the investigation is complete.
WGXA: FCC approved proposal to allow cellphone jammers in state and local prisons Policy
A WGXA article reported that the FCC approved a proposal to allow cellphone jammers in state and local prisons across the U.S., in a related story linked alongside coverage of Sheriff Gary Long's call for lawmakers to address Georgia prison contraband. Source text: "RELATED | FCC approves proposal to allow cellphone jammers in state and local prisons across U.S."
Boykins-White v. State: implied consent from call monitoring warnings Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia stated that it has found implied consent to the recording of a phone call when an inmate is told at the beginning of the telephone conversation that the call is subject to being monitored or recorded.
Lowe v. State distinguished Hudson v. Palmer for non-shakedown searches Legal fact
Lowe v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) distinguished Hudson v. Palmer, holding that a warrant was required for a search, because Hudson's no-expectation-of-privacy holding was rendered in the context of a 'shakedown' search conducted by prison authorities.
H.R. 1954 sponsored by Representative David Kustoff (R-TN-8) Legal fact
The Cellphone Jamming Reform Act's House version was sponsored by David Kustoff, who GovTrack lists as Representative for Tennessee's 8th congressional district.
Walton v. NYS DOCS followed Arsberry on calling-plan commission challenges Legal fact
Later treatment: Walton v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Services (N.Y.) followed Arsberry v. Illinois (7th Cir.). Source text: "Similar constitutional challenges to the commissions received by prison administrators in connection with other states' inmate calling plans have not succeeded (see e.g. Arsberry v Illinois, 244 F3d 558 [7th Cir 2001], cert denied 534 US 1062 [2001]"
Schmitt v. Rebertus (8th Cir. 2025) applied Turner v. Safley Legal fact
The Eighth Circuit's 2025 decision in Anthony Schmitt v. Jolene Rebertus applied Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), noting that 'Turner instructs courts to uphold prison regulations that' satisfy its standard.
GDC seized over 15,500 cell phones and 150 drones in prior year Statistic
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr's office stated that in the prior year GDC seized and processed over 15,500 cell phones and more than 150 drones.
15,500 cell phones vs. 150 drones
Mincey v. State: cell phone is a 'telecommunications device' under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(c) Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(c), a cell phone is a 'telecommunications device,' and affirmed a conviction for possession of a telecommunications device by an inmate where an officer saw the inmate holding a cell phone. The statute provides it 'shall be unlawful for an inmate to possess ... a telecommunications device; or any other item without the authorization of the warden or superintendent or his or her designee.'
Boykins-White v. State: repeated warnings established implied consent Legal fact
It is undisputed that Boykins-White was told numerous times during his phone calls that the calls could be recorded or monitored, which was sufficient to establish his implied consent regarding the recording of his phone conversations.
Romano v. GDC: intentional confiscation of inmate property not a due process violation if postdeprivation remedy available Legal fact
Romano v. Georgia Department of Corrections (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) followed Hudson v. Palmer, holding that a prison official's alleged intentional and unauthorized confiscation of an inmate's property 'does not constitute a violation of . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.'
S. 1137 (119th Congress): Operative restriction on FCC preventing jamming systems Finding
The bill's operative restriction states: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, and subject to paragraph (2), the Commission may not prevent a State or Federal correctional facility from operating a jamming system within the correctional facility to prevent, jam, or otherwise interfere with a wireless communication that is sent to or from a contraband device in the facility; or by or to an individual held in the facility.'
J. Robins v. Sec'y Harry applied Turner v. Safley factors Legal fact
Later treatment: J. Robins v. Sec'y Harry (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania) followed Turner v. Safley (U.S.). Source text: "policy, a court must apply the factors set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78"
Grenning v. Key (9th Cir. 2026) applied Turner v. Safley Legal fact
The Ninth Circuit's 2026 decision in Grenning v. Key explained that Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), 'governs most' prison regulation challenges.
Mincey v. State: ignorance of law does not negate criminal intent for cell phone possession Legal fact
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that a defendant's claimed ignorance that inmates were barred from possessing cell phones did not negate the criminal intent required for conviction of possession of a telecommunications device by an inmate, because ignorance of the law does not excuse a person who intended to do the act the legislature prohibited.
Boykins-White v. State: counsel not ineffective for failing to suppress recorded calls Legal fact
Affirming the denial of a motion for new trial, the Court of Appeals held trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress recorded jail calls: the decision was reasonable strategy, and the motion would not have been granted because the repeated warnings that calls could be recorded established the inmate's implied consent under OCGA § 16-11-66(a).
State v. Henderson: prisoners retain rights not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment Legal fact
State v. Henderson (Ga. 1999) explained Hudson v. Palmer, reiterating the long-standing rule that prisoners retain those rights that are not 'fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration.'
S. 1137: State facilities must self-fund jamming systems and consult local law enforcement Finding
The bill would require that, if the correctional facility operating a jamming system is a State correctional facility, the State operating the facility shall be responsible for funding the entire cost of the system, including its operation, and that the facility consult with local law enforcement and public safety officials before implementing the system and submit a notification to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons regarding that operation.
Martha Wright-Reed Act Section 4: Effect on Other Laws Legal fact
Section 4 ("Effect on Other Laws") of the Martha Wright-Reed Act provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to modify or affect any Federal, State, or local law to require telephone service or advanced communications services at a State or local prison, jail, or detention facility, or to prohibit the implementation of any safety and security measures related to such services at such facilities. Source text: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify or affect any Federal, State, or local law to require telephone service or advanced communications services at a State or local prison, jail, or detention facility or prohibit the implementation of any safety and security measures related to such services at such facilities."
Mincey v. State: evidence of intentional unauthorized possession sufficient for conviction Legal fact
The Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for possession of a telecommunications device (a cell phone) by an inmate, holding that a lack of proof the inmate knew possession was unlawful did not defeat criminal intent because the evidence showed he was an inmate who intentionally possessed an unauthorized phone.
Beaver v. State followed Boykins-White v. State Legal fact
Beaver v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) followed Boykins-White v. State, Ga. App. (2010), providing no basis to reverse the trial court's judgment.
S. 1137 cosponsors and committee referral Finding
The Senate bill's cosponsors are shown as Mr. Cotton 'for himself, Mr. Risch, Mr. Graham, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Hagerty, and Mr. Ricketts,' who introduced the bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Martha Wright-Reed Act Section 3(b)(2): FCC must consider safety and security costs Legal fact
Section 3(b)(2) of the Martha Wright-Reed Act directs that the FCC, in its ratemaking, shall consider costs associated with any safety and security measures necessary to provide the service. Source text: "(2) shall consider costs associated with any safety and security measures necessary to provide a service described in"
Gilday v. Dubois followed Washington v. Reno on rational limits on telephone access Legal fact
Later treatment: Gilday v. Dubois (1st Cir.) followed Washington v. Reno (6th Cir.). Source text: "35 F.3d at 1100 (prison may impose rational limits on inmate telephone access, including subjecting inmates to MITS-type system);"
Alejandro Huerta-Ramirez v. State explained Rogers v. State Legal fact
Alejandro Huerta-Ramirez v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020) explained Rogers v. State, Ga., with evidence showing the appellant's girlfriend heard the conversation.
In re T.Y.B. followed Culbertson v. State on offensive weapon definition Legal fact
In re T.Y.B. (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) followed Culbertson v. State, Ga. App. (1989), regarding OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2)'s definition of an object, device, or instrument likely to result in serious bodily injury when used offensively.
Pope v. Hightower: Turner v. Safley applied to Alabama telephone restriction Legal fact
Applying Turner v. Safley, the Eleventh Circuit held an Alabama prison's ten-person telephone calling list reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives and did not violate the inmate's First Amendment rights; it reversed the district court's bench-trial ruling and rendered judgment for defendants. Source text: "Consequently, we hold the challenged restriction does not violate inmate Pope's First Amendment rights."
In re J.W.B. followed Culbertson v. State on offensive weapon definition Legal fact
In re J.W.B. (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) followed Culbertson v. State, Ga. App. (1989), regarding OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2)'s definition of an object, device, or instrument likely to result in serious bodily injury when used offensively.
47 U.S.C. § 333 prohibits interference with licensed radio communications Legal fact
47 U.S.C. § 333 provides that no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Communications Act or operated by the United States Government. Source text: "No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government."
Source
Toby T. Copeland v. State followed Maddox v. State and Strozier v. State Legal fact
Toby T. Copeland v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) followed Maddox v. State, Ga. App. (2013) and Strozier v. State, Ga. App., regarding circumstantial evidence inferences.
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b) prohibits non-compliant devices Legal fact
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b) provides that no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations the FCC promulgates under that section. Source text: "No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section."
Source
Jividen v. State followed Webb v. State on exculpatory witness evidence Legal fact
Jividen v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) followed Webb v. State, Ga. App. (2001), holding that because defendant failed to call allegedly exculpatory witnesses at new trial hearing, he 'provided no evidence, other than bare allegations, that the testimony of these witnesses would have changed the outcome of the proceedings.'
Sources
129 cited sources backing this research.
Secondary
Journalism
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Secondary
Journalism
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Secondary
Journalism
Primary
Press release
Primary
Legislation
Secondary
Legislation
Secondary
Legislation
Secondary
Legislation
Secondary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legislation
Secondary
Journalism
Primary
Data portal
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Press release
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legislation
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Primary
Legal document
Key Entities
Organizations, people, facilities, and other named entities referenced in this research.
18 U.S.C. § 1791
[legislation]
18 U.S.C. § 2510
[legislation]
18 U.S.C. § 2511
[legislation]
28 CFR § 540.100
[legislation]
47 U.S.C. § 302a
[legislation]
47 U.S.C. § 333
[legislation]
Abraham v. County of Greenville
[case]
Alejandro Huerta-Ramirez v. State
[case]
Antenor v. State of Alaska
[case]
Anthony Davila v. Robin Gladden
[case]
Anthony Schmitt v. Jolene Rebertus
[case]
Arsberry v. Illinois
[case]
Beaver v. State
[case]
Benzel v. Grammer
[case]
Board of Corrections
[organization]
Boykins-White v. State
[case]
Bull v. City and County of San Francisco
[case]
Burgeson v. State
[case]
Butts County Sheriff's Office
[organization]
Calhoun State Prison
[facility]
Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010
[legislation]
Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2019
[legislation]
Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2023
[legislation]
Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025
[legislation]
Chris Carr
[person]
Collinsworth v. State
[case]
Commissioner Oliver
[person]
Contraband Interdiction System
[program]
Court of Appeals of Georgia
[organization]
CTIA
[organization]
Culbertson v. State
[case]
David Kustoff
[person]
David Wilson v. State
[case]
Department of Homeland Security
[organization]
Derek Burns v. State
[case]
Designated Correctional Facility Official
[program]
Dooly State Prison
[facility]
Elizabeth Haskell v. Edmund Brown, Jr.
[case]
FCI Jesup
[facility]
Federal Bureau of Investigation
[organization]
Federal Bureau of Prisons
[organization]
Federal Communications Commission
[organization]
Gary Long
[person]
GDC SOP 104.47
[organization]
GDC SOP 227.05
[organization]
GEO Group
[organization]
Georgia Board of Corrections
[organization]
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
[organization]
Georgia Department of Corrections
[organization]
Georgia General Assembly
[organization]
Georgia Prisoners' Speak
[organization]
Georgia Procurement Registry
[organization]
Georgia State Prison
[facility]
Gilbert Alexander Hill v. State
[case]
Gilday v. Dubois
[case]
Gregory Dozier
[person]
Grenning v. Key
[case]
H.R. 2350
[legislation]
HB 1230
[legislation]
Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons
[case]
Hudson v. Palmer
[case]
Human Rights Defense Center v. Baxter County, Arkansas
[case]
Human Rights Defense Center v. Union County, Arkansas
[case]
Human Rights Defense Center, Inc. v. Uttecht
[case]
In re J.W.B.
[case]
In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation
[case]
In re T.Y.B.
[case]
Jividen v. State
[case]
Jonathan Henry v. State
[case]
Juan Valdez v. Mark A. Rosenbaum
[case]
Katie Arsberry v. State of Illinois
[case]
Keller v. State
[case]
Lopez v. Reyes
[case]
Lowe v. State
[case]
Maddox v. State
[case]
Maria Terrell v. State
[case]
Marquis Maddox v. State
[case]
Martha Wright-Reed Act
[legislation]
Mike Chitwood
[person]
Mincey v. State
[case]
Mosley v. State
[case]
Nielsen v. Thornell
[case]
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-46
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-11
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 42-2-8
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 42-4-13
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18
[legislation]
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2
[legislation]
Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 16-11-46
[legislation]
Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-5-18(c)
[legislation]
Overton v. Bazzetta
[case]
Pope v. Hightower
[case]
Reid v. State
[case]
Rogers v. State
[case]
Romano v. Georgia Department of Corrections
[case]
Roy v. Stanley
[case]
S. 1137
[legislation]
Scott Panetti v. Lorie Davis
[case]
Searcy v. United States
[case]
Senator Cotton
[person]
Smith State Prison
[facility]
State v. Henderson
[case]
Strozier v. State
[case]
Supreme Court of Georgia
[organization]
Terrell v. State
[case]
Toby T. Copeland v. State
[case]
Tom Cotton
[person]
Turner v. Safley
[case]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
[organization]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
[organization]
United States v. George Davis and William E. Newsome
[case]
United States v. Van Poyck
[case]
Valdez v. Rosenbaum
[case]
Volusia County Sheriff's Office
[organization]
Walton v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
[case]
Ware State Prison
[facility]
Washington v. Reno
[case]
Webb v. Department of Justice
[case]
Webb v. State
[case]
Wheeler Correctional Institution
[facility]
Yusef Steele v. Warden Cicchi
[case]