Stingrays in Minnesota: What They Are, What the Law Requires, and What to Watch

What a Stingray Does (Plain English)

A Stingray (also called an IMSI catcher) pretends to be a cell tower so phones in range will connect. That lets an operator learn device identifiers and estimate a phone's location in real time. Because all phones nearby may briefly interact, bystander data can be swept up too. ¹

Minnesota's Legal Baseline: A Warrant Is Required

Minnesota law (§ 626A.42) prohibits government entities from obtaining an electronic device's location information—including unique identifier location—without a tracking warrant supported by probable cause, subject to limited exceptions such as exigent circumstances. Warrants are time-limited (generally ≤ 60 days, with similar limits for extensions), include notice provisions, and require reporting. ²

Federal Policies (Context, Not Binding on Locals)

Since 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice has required federal agents to obtain warrants for cell-site simulator use (with limited exceptions), and to delete non-target data. Updated DOJ guidance likewise emphasizes deletion and minimization. These are policies for federal use—not laws that bind local police—but they set a reference point. ^{3 4}

Transparency Problems: Sealing, NDAs, and Public Insight

Even with a warrant requirement on the books, public oversight can lag. Past Twin Cities reporting found that Stingray-related tracking warrants were sometimes sealed or hard to access, despite the statute's notice and unsealing framework. ^{5 6}

Separately, ACLU investigations have highlighted FBI nondisclosure agreements that pressure state and local agencies to keep cell-site simulator use quiet, complicating transparency. ^{7 8}

Minnesota's State Court Administrator publishes periodic warrant reports under Chapter 626A, which can improve visibility—but they don't always give granular detail on cell-site simulators. ⁹

Related Trend: Location Dragnets Under Scrutiny

Beyond Stingrays, courts are wrestling with "reverse location" or geofence warrants. In 2024, a case before the Minnesota Supreme Court drew amicus briefs arguing that broad geofences violate constitutional protections—reflecting a general trend toward treating location data collection as a search requiring probable cause. ^{10 11}

Practical Questions Minnesotans Can Ask

• Warrants: How many § 626A.42 tracking warrants for real-time device/identifier location were obtained in the last 12 months? ²
• Equipment: Does the agency own or borrow a cell-site simulator? From whom? Under what NDA terms? ⁷
• Minimization & deletion: What policies govern bystander data and deletion (even if modeled on DOJ practices)? ^{3 4}
• Notice & sealing: After cases close, are affected individuals notified as required? If warrants remain sealed, why? ^{2 5}