Bill Overview
Title: Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows a state or federal correctional facility to operate a jamming system to interfere with cellphone signals within inmate housing facilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals incarcerated globally
Estimated Size: 2300000
- State and federal correctional facilities house approximately 2.3 million individuals across the United States.
- Jamming cellphone signals can prevent inmates from unauthorized communications, with effects both on inmates and people who might communicate with them.
- Globally, the number of incarcerated individuals is difficult to consolidate, but much higher than in the U.S.
- Cellphone use within correctional facilities can involve both legal and illegal communications.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects inmates and potentially their families, some correctional officers, and potentially nearby residents if signal interference extends beyond prison housing facilities.
- The policy will likely have no impact on the general population not associated with correctional facilities.
- A variety of stakeholder perspectives are needed, including inmates who may rely on cellphones for maintaining external relationships, families communicating with such inmates, and staff within prisons who may perceive jamming differently.
- Considering the population size and budget constraints, a significant portion of the budget will initially target technology and implementation costs. Subsequent year-by-year costs should focus on maintenance and potential upgrades as technology advances or issue arise.
Simulated Interviews
Inmate (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cellphone is the only way I can keep in touch with my kids.
- I'm worried that without it, I would feel isolated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Mother of an inmate (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about losing contact with my son. It's our main form of communication.
- I understand the need for security, but there should be alternatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Correctional Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unauthorized cellphones can be a security threat.
- Jamming might make the job safer, but could also jam our own communications without proper equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nearby resident to a prison (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't want my personal cellphone signal getting lost due to the prison nearby.
- There should be rules to ensure residents aren't affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Civil Rights Advocate (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While unauthorized communication should be controlled, jamming is not a solution without alternatives for legal communication.
- Inmates need legal and meaningful communication channels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Lawyer for incarcerated individuals (New York, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My clients need to contact me regularly, and jamming could interfere with their legal rights.
- This could complicate legal processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Warden at a federal prison (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Jamming technology can control contraband effectively.
- Implementation must be precise to avoid false-positives blocking legitimate communications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Prison Reformer (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cutting communication lines seems counterproductive to rehabilitation.
- We should focus on secure, monitored communication instead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Tech expert (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technologically, this is feasible, but there's a significant need for careful implementation to safeguard rights.
- Signal precision is critical to avoid affecting non-target zones.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public Safety Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security threats from cellphones are real, but solutions must consider balance between safety and rights.
- Information control within prisons is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- Technical feasibility and reliability of cellphone jamming technologies in different facility environments.
- Potential for interference with non-inmate cellphones, including those of staff or nearby residents.
- Legal implications related to the restriction of communications in correctional facilities.
- The balance between security enhancements and individual rights.