Feds Got Warrants to Use Fake Cell Towers to Hunt Down Don Lemon’s Producer

The investigation centers on a January 18 demonstration at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Protesters gathered at the religious institution to voice opposition against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, specifically targeting the church because one of its pastors, David Easterwood, served concurrently as the head of the ICE St. Paul field office. The protest resulted in 39 individuals facing charges of conspiring to violate the civil rights of congregants and interfering with religious worship. Among those caught in the legal net were high-profile figures, including former CNN host Don Lemon and journalist Georgia Fort, both of whom maintained they were present solely to document the events.

The Deployment of Digital Surveillance

The court filings reveal that federal agents secured judicial authorization to deploy cell-site simulators—commonly referred to as "Stingrays" or IMSI catchers—to track the location of Jerome Richardson, a 21-year-old student who had assisted Lemon with logistical arrangements during the protest.

On January 30, a judge in Minnesota signed a warrant authorizing the use of this technology against Richardson. A subsequent warrant was signed in Pennsylvania the following day, as Richardson was completing his studies at Temple University. These devices function by masquerading as legitimate cellular towers, forcing mobile devices in the vicinity to connect to them. This process allows authorities to pinpoint a user’s precise location, but it also creates a digital dragnet, capturing identifying data from every other cellular device in the immediate area—regardless of whether those individuals are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The use of these tools remains highly secretive. FBI records disclosed in 2023 confirmed that local law enforcement agencies utilizing the technology must adhere to strict non-disclosure agreements, often keeping the methods hidden even during trial proceedings. Critics argue that the application of such invasive technology against individuals associated with the press represents a significant escalation in the surveillance of journalists.

A Chronology of Escalating Investigative Tactics

The pursuit of the Cities Church protesters has been marked by a series of aggressive investigative maneuvers that have drawn scrutiny from defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates alike.

• January 18: Protesters assemble at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, to demonstrate against the leadership of the local ICE office.
• January 29: After a magistrate judge initially denied several arrest warrant requests—citing a lack of evidence regarding criminal behavior by journalists—a grand jury returns an indictment against the protesters.
• January 30–31: Federal authorities obtain warrants to use cell-site simulators to track Jerome Richardson.
• January 31: Richardson posts a video to YouTube stating he expects to be taken into federal custody, signaling his intent to cooperate.
• February 2024: Defendants report being arrested in high-profile manners, with Don Lemon being apprehended late at night at a hotel in Beverly Hills, despite prior offers from his legal counsel to arrange a voluntary surrender.

Beyond the use of simulators, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employed a controversial custom summons authority to demand phone and YouTube records without requiring prior judicial approval. Furthermore, investigators cast an exceptionally wide net by seeking records from the retailer REI to identify every customer who purchased a specific green beanie in the Minneapolis–St. Paul region over a span of two years. Defense attorneys have identified at least 92 instances where such summonses were issued, prompting ongoing legal challenges regarding the scope of federal investigative powers.

Inaccuracies in Judicial Affidavits

A critical point of contention in the proceedings is the reliability of the information provided to the courts to justify these surveillance warrants. Affidavits used to support the request for tracking tools alleged that Lemon, Fort, and Richardson were "chanting with agitators" at the church. Prosecutors later conceded that this claim was factually incorrect regarding Lemon and Fort. According to defense attorneys, the government admitted that this false assertion appeared in at least 15 separate warrant applications, raising concerns about the integrity of the judicial process.

Cooper Quintin, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), condemned the use of these tools as an "appalling attack on the First Amendment." Quintin emphasized that deploying advanced surveillance against the press for covering unfavorable stories creates a chilling effect on journalistic independence and public discourse.

Official Responses and the Stance of the Justice Department

The federal government has largely remained opaque regarding the specifics of the investigation. In response to inquiries, the Department of Justice stated that it "speaks through its court filings." The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on ongoing investigations or specific investigative methodologies, directing all inquiries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota, which did not provide a response.

The lack of transparency is compounded by the fact that it remains unclear whether a simulator was ever physically deployed or if the applications targeting other individuals, such as Georgia Fort or Jamael Lundy, were ever authorized by a judge. Legal motions filed by the defense indicate that even the prosecutors themselves were, at one point, unsure if the surveillance applications had yielded any usable evidence.

Broader Implications for Privacy and Press Freedom

The case of Jerome Richardson highlights the intersection of modern technology and constitutional rights. Richardson, a former NAACP chapter leader and advocate for youth activism, maintains that his role was purely supportive. In his public statement, he asserted that his work with Lemon involved logistics and connecting the journalist with local community voices.

From a legal standpoint, the aggressive nature of the investigation has drawn criticism even from former federal prosecutors. One anonymous source with extensive experience in counterterrorism cases noted that while using location-tracking technology is not inherently illegal, the tactics employed here appear disproportionate. The fact that Richardson was tracked via a simulator just days before he voluntarily surrendered at a federal courthouse suggests that the use of such "draconian" tools may have been unnecessary for securing his appearance in court.

The implications for the future are profound. As law enforcement agencies increasingly adopt high-tech surveillance tools, the threshold for what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in the eyes of the government appears to be shifting. If journalists and those who assist them can be subjected to cell-site simulation—a tool typically reserved for high-stakes threats—the boundaries between legitimate criminal investigation and political surveillance become dangerously blurred.

As the legal battles continue, the defense teams for Lemon, Fort, and others are expected to press for further disclosure regarding the use of these technologies. The resolution of these motions may set a significant precedent for how federal agencies are permitted to use tracking technology against members of the media and those involved in political demonstrations. Until then, the case serves as a stark reminder of the fragile balance between national security objectives and the fundamental rights of citizens to free speech and privacy in a digital age.