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

The investigation, which has sparked intense scrutiny from civil liberties groups and legal experts, centers on a protest held on January 18 at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Protesters targeted the facility due to the dual role of Pastor David Easterwood, who simultaneously led the local field office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Among those present to document the event were journalist Georgia Fort and former CNN anchor Don Lemon. Following the demonstration, 39 individuals were charged with conspiring to violate the civil rights of churchgoers and interfering with religious worship.

The Deployment of Stingray Technology

The most alarming aspect of the government’s pursuit involves the use of cell-site simulators, commonly referred to as Stingrays or IMSI catchers. These devices function by masquerading as legitimate cell towers, forcing all mobile devices in the immediate vicinity to connect to them. This process allows authorities to pinpoint the precise location of a target’s phone, but it also indiscriminately captures the identifying information of every other device in the area, regardless of whether the owners are suspects or innocent bystanders.

Court records reveal that twelve days after the protest, federal authorities moved to deploy this technology against Jerome Richardson, then a senior at Temple University. Warrants were issued in Minnesota on January 30 and in Pennsylvania on January 31. Despite the intrusive nature of the technology, the government’s application for these warrants appears to have been based on questionable intelligence. Prosecutors later admitted that assertions made in at least 15 separate warrant affidavits—specifically that Lemon and Fort were "chanting with agitators"—were factually incorrect.

A Chronology of Escalation

The investigation into the Cities Church protest has been characterized by an aggressive, often contentious series of investigative maneuvers by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and federal prosecutors.

• January 18: The demonstration at Cities Church takes place in St. Paul, Minnesota.
• January 29: After a magistrate judge initially resists issuing several arrest warrants, the government secures a grand jury indictment against 39 individuals.
• January 30–31: Federal judges sign off on cell-site simulator warrants targeting Jerome Richardson’s mobile device.
• January 31: Richardson posts a video to YouTube stating he is aware of the charges and expects to surrender to authorities.
• February 2: Richardson voluntarily presents himself to a federal courthouse in Philadelphia and is released on bond that same afternoon.
• July: Legal counsel for Georgia Fort files a motion noting that prosecutors remain unsure if the surveillance applications were ever successfully deployed or if they yielded any actionable data.

The timeline raises significant questions regarding the necessity of the surveillance. Richardson, who had been a prominent student activist, was effectively tracking his own legal status publicly. The use of a high-level surveillance tool—typically reserved for high-stakes threats—to locate a college student who was already preparing for a voluntary surrender has drawn sharp criticism from legal observers.

Invasive Investigative Tactics

Beyond the use of Stingrays, the federal investigation has employed a wide array of controversial data-collection methods. Defense attorneys have identified at least 92 customs summonses issued by the Department of Homeland Security. These summonses allow the government to bypass the judiciary, demanding records directly from service providers without a judge’s prior approval.

In one instance, investigators requested records identifying every individual who had purchased a specific style of green beanie from an REI store in the Twin Cities area over a period spanning more than two years. This "geofencing" and dragnet-style data collection, combined with the tracking of journalists’ telephone and YouTube history, has prompted defense teams to challenge the fundamental authority of these summonses.

The treatment of the journalists involved has also been highlighted as a departure from standard procedure. Rather than allowing for voluntary surrender, attorneys for Don Lemon and Georgia Fort allege that federal agents conducted high-profile, late-night arrests—Lemon at a Beverly Hills hotel during the Grammy Awards, and Fort at her private residence.

Official Responses and Legal Standards

The Justice Department has remained tight-lipped regarding the specifics of the case, issuing a brief statement through an email that the department "speaks through its court filings." The Department of Homeland Security has similarly declined to comment on ongoing investigations, citing a policy that prevents discussion of specific investigative methods.

Current DHS policy stipulates that cell-site simulators should only be utilized in instances where they are "best suited to achieve specific public safety objectives." However, the lack of transparency surrounding the St. Paul investigation leaves the public and the courts in the dark as to what specific public safety threshold was met to justify such an intrusion.

Broader Implications for Civil Liberties

The use of cell-site simulators against journalists and protesters carries profound implications for First Amendment rights. Cooper Quintin, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), described the deployment of such tools against the press as an "appalling attack" on constitutional protections.

The primary concern among privacy advocates is the "dragnet" nature of the devices. Because a Stingray cannot distinguish between the phone of a target and the phone of a nearby civilian, the technology inherently violates the privacy of innocent individuals. As these tools become more prevalent, the risk of "chilling" public participation in protests increases, as citizens may fear that their presence at a demonstration—or even in the general vicinity of one—will lead to their digital footprint being logged by the government.

Furthermore, the inaccuracy of the affidavits used to justify these searches poses a threat to the integrity of the judicial process. When federal agencies provide judges with false information, even if inadvertent, it undermines the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause. The fact that prosecutors acknowledged the errors in the affidavits only after the warrants had been processed highlights a systemic failure in the oversight of these surveillance applications.

Conclusion

As the legal battle continues, the case of the Cities Church protesters remains a focal point for debates over the extent of government surveillance power. With 39 defendants and an array of challenged investigative tactics, the court’s rulings on the motion to suppress evidence—specifically evidence potentially gathered through cell-site simulators—will likely set a significant precedent.

For now, the intersection of high-tech surveillance, journalistic activity, and the constitutional right to protest remains a volatile and unresolved area of American law. The questions remaining for the government—why the surveillance was necessary, whether the technology was actually deployed, and why inaccurate information was used to obtain judicial authorization—are expected to be central to the upcoming legal proceedings. The outcome will likely influence not only the fate of the 39 defendants but also the future standards for how federal agencies deploy sophisticated surveillance technology in a democratic society.