Feds Sought Cell-Tower Warrants To Track Don Lemon's Producer

Federal and state investigators obtained court authorization to use fake cell phone towers, known as cell-site simulators, to find and arrest a 21-year-old college student who helped produce Don Lemon's coverage of a January anti-ICE protest in St. Paul, Minnesota, according to court filings reviewed by WIRED.

The same records show agents also sought permission to use the devices against journalist Georgia Fort and a Minnesota state Senate candidate.

Who Is Jerome Richardson And Why Was He Targeted?

Richardson is a former Temple University student who has since graduated, WIRED reports. He helped produce Lemon's coverage of the protest. He is one of 39 people charged with conspiring to violate worshippers' civil rights and interfering with religious worship, stemming from a demonstration at Cities Church in St. Paul.

Protesters said they targeted the church's January 18 service because one of its pastors, David Easterwood, also led ICE's St. Paul field office, according to WIRED. Lemon, a former CNN host, and Fort are also among those charged. Both journalists say they were present to report on the demonstration, not to take part in it.

What Do The Warrant Filings Show?

Twelve days after the protest, judges in two states signed warrants authorizing agents to use cell-site simulators, commonly called Stingrays or IMSI catchers, to locate Richardson's phone, WIRED reports. A Minnesota judge signed one on January 30. A Pennsylvania judge signed a second the next day.

Richardson's lawyers, in a motion seeking to exclude the tracking evidence, wrote that the purpose was "locating and arresting him," according to court filings cited by WIRED.

Agents separately applied for cell-site simulator warrants targeting the phones of Fort and Jamael Lundy, then a Minnesota state Senate candidate. They also sought pen register orders, which log the numbers a phone contacts, for Fort and a number WIRED traced to Lemon.

Were The Surveillance Tools Actually Used?

It is not clear whether a judge approved the applications targeting Fort and Lundy, or whether agents actually deployed a cell-site simulator to find Richardson, WIRED reports. The records reviewed by the outlet do not resolve either question.

In a July letter filed in court, Fort's lawyers said prosecutors "did not know" whether the surveillance applications had been authorized or had produced evidence, according to WIRED's review of the filing.

Why Are Privacy Advocates Alarmed?

Cell-site simulators work by impersonating cell phone towers to locate a target's device. In doing so, they can sweep up identifying information from every nearby phone, including those belonging to people not suspected of any crime. That indiscriminate reach has made the devices controversial among privacy advocates, who describe them as dragnet tools.

FBI records released in 2023 showed that police agencies borrowing the bureau's simulators had to agree to keep details of their use secret, even in court, WIRED reports.

Cooper Quintin, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told WIRED: "Using an advanced surveillance capability such as a cell-site simulator against members of the free press for reporting stories that are unfavorable to the president is an appalling attack on the First Amendment." Quintin has spent years researching the devices and building tools to detect them. Using EFF's detection software, WIRED reports it found evidence consistent with simulator activity, though the full findings were not detailed in the material reviewed.

What To Watch

• Whether Richardson's motion to exclude the tracking evidence succeeds, and what it reveals about how the warrant was executed.
• Whether prosecutors ever confirm if judges approved the simulator and pen-register applications targeting Fort and Lundy.
• How the 39-defendant case against the Cities Church protesters, including Lemon and Fort, proceeds through Minnesota courts.
• Whether other news organizations or press-freedom groups seek their own records on the surveillance applications.

The case ties together two contested questions: how far investigators can go to track protest participants, and whether journalists covering a demonstration can be swept into the same dragnet as the people they are covering. WIRED's review of the court filings does not answer either question. It documents only what agents asked courts to approve.