MARYLAND · HAILSTORM / STINGRAY · DISCOVERY

Police used a cell-site simulator to find Kerron Andrews inside a home. His defense initially wasn't told how police had located him.

Secret location technique → discovery fight → evidence suppressed

In State v. Andrews, Baltimore police used a Hailstorm cell-site simulator to precisely locate Andrews' phone inside a residence. Court records show that initial prosecution disclosures failed to reveal the method used to find him. When defense counsel specifically requested that information, the State responded that it did not possess information about the method. Months later, the prosecutor told the defense that she understood a Stingray had been used and was waiting for the paperwork.

Maryland's appellate court ultimately held that using the cell-site simulator under the authorization obtained in that case violated Andrews' Fourth Amendment rights and upheld suppression of resulting evidence.

Why it matters: A defendant cannot meaningfully challenge surveillance that the defense does not know occurred. Due process depends on disclosure as well as rules.

Primary source: Maryland Court of Special Appeals — State v. Andrews

WHY THIS LIBRARY EXISTS

This page preserves the anecdote and its caveats separately from the shorter Why Privacy Matters explainer. The goal is to keep the argument readable without hiding the receipts.