As of June, Sheriff Noah Robinson of Vanderburgh County had not previously considered the serious implications that signal jammers could have on law enforcement activities.

This marked the occasion when his office detected one residing in the back of a vehicle.

Robinson conveyed to an interim legislative committee last week that the office had received a call regarding a burglary in progress. The staff utilized the subdivision's camera systems to track down a vehicle that was transporting the suspected burglars.

It was noted by Robinson that the officer's radio and computer stopped working at the moment the car was pulled over.

Capable of blocking Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, and other communication signals, signal jammers can disrupt the operation of devices like smartphones, Ring doorbells, and wireless alarm systems. Robinson reported that the wifi jammer identified by his office has a range of one mile.

He addressed an interim panel that is centered on the criminal code, imploring the lawmaker-dominated group to reflect on the potential enactment of a new law that would criminalize both the importation and the various uses of the devices.

Robinson pointed out that there is no need to elaborate further to see that this has other significant applications, especially from a terrorism perspective.

He detailed scenarios in which bad actors could potentially compromise medical devices in hospitals, disrupt police communications through surveillance towers, access the mobile phones of ordinary citizens via cellular towers, and even control traffic flow through wirelessly operated traffic signals.

The federal government classifies signal jammers as illegal. The Federal Communications Commission strictly prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of any device that interferes with authorized radio communications.

As stated by Representative Matt Pierce, a Democrat from Bloomington, prisons are unable to implement signal jammers as a means to tackle the issue of unauthorized mobile devices.

Senator Lonnie Randolph, representing the interests of East Chicago, sought clarification on why it would be pertinent for Indiana legislators to consider changes when there is an existing federal ban on the devices in question.

Robinson remarked that Indiana officers do not have the statutory backing to enforce the law "immediately," as no state statute exists to support this authority.

Leading the interim panel and the House’s Courts and Criminal Code committee, Representative Wendy McNamara stated her belief that Robinson’s office had a fortunate outcome, suggesting that it "could have been much worse."

She indicated, however, that the laws pertaining to the technology may not be implemented in a timely manner.

McNamara stated to reporters that, quite frankly, we do not have a formalized concept for handling the issue of signal jammers at this time.