Up until June, Vanderburgh County Sheriff Noah Robinson had not recognized the extent of chaos that signal jammers could inflict on law enforcement operations.

This was the time when his office identified one situated in the trunk of a car.

Robinson reported to an interim legislative committee last week that the office had received a call concerning a burglary in progress. The staff employed the subdivision's camera systems to track down a vehicle linked to the alleged burglars.

Robinson stated that when the officer conducted the traffic stop, the radio and computer in the vehicle became inoperative.

Signal jammers are capable of interfering with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, and other communication systems, which can hinder the functionality of devices like mobile phones, Ring doorbells, and wireless security alarms. Robinson noted that the wifi jammers found by his office has a range of one mile.

He presented his remarks to an interim panel concentrating on the criminal code, requesting that the legislator-dominated assembly evaluate the possibility of enacting a new law to prohibit the importation and multiple uses of the devices.

Robinson indicated that further exploration is not required to understand that this has various implications, particularly in relation to terrorism.

He outlined potential situations where nefarious actors might interrupt medical devices in hospitals, disrupt police communications through surveillance towers, access the mobile phones of ordinary citizens via cellular towers, and influence traffic patterns regulated by wireless traffic signals.

At the federal level, signal jammers are deemed illegal. The Federal Communications Commission explicitly prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of any device that interferes with authorized radio communications.

According to Representative Matt Pierce, who represents Bloomington as a Democrat, prisons are not permitted to utilize signal jammers to resolve their challenges with contraband cell phones.

Senator Lonnie Randolph of East Chicago questioned the necessity for Indiana lawmakers to explore alterations given that these devices are already banned on a federal basis.

According to Robinson, Indiana officers do not possess "immediate" authority to enforce the law as there is no state statute that provides for such power.

Wendy McNamara, the representative who heads the interim panel and the House’s Courts and Criminal Code committee, remarked that she felt Robinson’s office was fortunate, noting that the circumstances "could have been much worse."

Nevertheless, she pointed out that the legislative measures related to the technology might not advance in the near term.

In a statement to the press, McNamara expressed that, in all honesty, there is no formalized approach at this time for managing the problem of signal jammers.