© MEL EVANS/ASSOCIATED PRESSCompany president Scott Schober uses a magnifier to look at a circuit board for a cellular-telephone detector at Berkeley Varitronics Systems in Metuchen, N.J., last year.
The systems, which go by trade names such as "Jugular" and "Wolfhound," are handheld and sometimes come with antennas so small they can be attached to clothing, according to public documents. The gadgets cost only a few thousand dollars each—far less than more sophisticated systems, and well within the reach of many local agencies.
Cellphone tracking technology is getting cheaper, smaller and more accessible for police departments. And that has civil liberties advocates worried.
"It's extremely affordable and literally fits in your hand," said Scott Schober, the president of Berkeley Varitronics Systems Inc., which makes the Wolfhound and several other cellphone and Wi-Fi detection systems.
© BERKELEY VARITRONICS SYSTEMSBerkeley Varitronics Systems’ Wolfhound Pro cellphone-detecting device.
"We can't disclose any legal requirements associated with the use of this equipment," said Elise Armacost, a spokeswoman for the Baltimore County Police, which purchased Jugular and Trachea devices from KEYW Corp., according to the records. "Doing so may disclose how we use it, which, in turn, interferes with its public-safety purpose."
The tools are a reminder that surveillance technology is changing rapidly, becoming more accessible to smaller law-enforcement departments and presenting a challenge to lawmakers and civil-liberties advocates. More than a dozen states have recently passed laws limiting the use of location-tracking tools, for instance by requiring warrants for cellphone tracking except in emergency situations.
Unlike other cellphone-tracking methods, these covert devices might not require court orders under current federal laws, said Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at George Washington University. That's because the Jugular and similar devices passively gather radio waves emitted whenever the phones communicate with a cell tower, according to public documents and people familiar with such tools. The other tracking procedures involve more active and intrusive surveillance, such as recording routing data sent by a phone.
At least 25 state and local agencies appear to have bought such devices for investigative use since 2010, the first year the records showed such purchases, according to government purchase-order data reviewed by the Journal. The data, which are not comprehensive, were obtained from SmartProcure, a company that provides access to purchasing information submitted by state, local and federal agencies. In many cases, the devices are mentioned by name; some simply describe the equipment.
The largest purchaser of the passive cellphone-finding equipment in the SmartProcure records was the federal government, including the Defense and Justice department agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Justice Department declined to comment; Defense didn't respond to a request for comment.
The local agencies buying the gear range from those in large cities to smaller enclaves such as Sunrise, Fla., as well as state agencies such as state police.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement in 2011 and 2013 filed notices of its intent to buy this type of equipment from KEYW, a Hanover, Md., cybersecurity and intelligence company, saying the department "needs something which is more portable, more reliable and 'covert' in functionality, and is able to utilize advances in technology." The department declined to comment further. KEYW declined to comment on its technology, except to say that this part of its business represents about 1% to 2% of its revenue.
David Bursten, the public information officer for the Indiana State Police, which purchased KEYW equipment in 2013 for $6,500 under a label of "recreational equipment," said the department wouldn't discuss investigative techniques. "Unfortunately, the criminal element reads the paper as well, and we are not interested in making a tough job tougher by educating the very criminals" the department is fighting, he said.
Mr. Bursten didn't specify the legal requirements for use of the devices, but he said his agency seeks judicial review and follows court recommendations even in investigations that don't need court orders or search warrants. "This eliminates any question about the appropriateness of any particular investigative strategy," he said.
He added that the labeling of the equipment as recreational was likely a mistake.
John Sawicki, an attorney and computer-forensic expert in Florida, said he hasn't seen a case in which these technologies have been mentioned. "It's absolutely something I will be on the lookout for," he said.
Experts familiar with the technology say there are several ways in which these tools are typically used. Some of the documents said the devices would be used with tools known as "stingrays," which act as fake cellphone towers and get phones in the area to link to them. Stingrays are larger and frequently mounted on surveillance vans or planes, and may cost more than $100,000 each.
Heath Hardman, a former signals analyst with the U.S. Marine Corps, said that based on the public documents, the covert equipment could be described as a "finishing tool," likely used "to locate a target phone with precision, up close and covertly," after another tracking method determines the phone's general area.
Mr. Schober, of Berkeley Varitronics, said such devices can also track phones without a stingray, if law enforcement sends a message to a phone and gets it to communicate with a tower. Or officers could wait for the phone to communicate with the tower on its own.
The Wolfhound device sold by Mr. Schober's company is most frequently used to locate cellphones in prisons and other places where they aren't allowed at all, and where there are no questions about the devices' legal use. But he said law enforcement had recently shown more interest in other uses.
"Passive detection" devices don't allow officers to listen in on conversations, said Mr. Schober and others. The devices are especially attractive to local agencies because of their price, Mr. Schober said. His company's Wolfhound Pro sells for $2,400. KEYW's tools are more sophisticated and pricier. According to purchase orders, its Jugular device costs about $6,500 to $8,500, depending on accessories.
Mr. Schober said the legal status of the devices has been a selling point: "A lot of the guys using it are saying, 'I don't have to tell anyone I'm using it...because your device is completely passive, so I'm not getting into any privacy issues,' " he said.
But Linda Lye, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in California, said she worried that such tools would often be used to find cellphones inside people's homes. She believes this could violate the Fourth Amendment, which says people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches in their homes.
Several civil-liberties and technology advocates said that if state lawmakers want to limit cellphone tracking, they should make sure their laws cover this passive technology.
"Everyone is really behind the curve on this," said Daniel Rigmaiden, a civil-liberties advocate who provided initial public documents to the Journal and has been following such legislation.
Comment: Law enforcement will always be adapting itself and its technology to find ways to covertly monitor the population. Since the release of the Snowden files, the public sentiment has turned negative towards overt surveillance, so police are now going more covert and doing all they can to avoid needing court orders to monitor the population.