Latest action: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Armed Services, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Requires police to get warrants before using cell-site simulators to track phone locations.
The problem
Law enforcement can currently use cell-site simulators (devices that locate phones) without court approval, raising privacy concerns about warrantless tracking of Americans' movements and locations.
The proposal
Requires police to obtain a warrant from a judge before using cell-site simulators, with limited exceptions for emergencies and national security situations.
The impact
Police departments must change procedures; citizens get legal protection against location tracking; courts handle more warrant requests; national security operations may need review.
Prevents police from tracking people's locations without a judge's approval. Requires law enforcement to show they have good reason before using tracking technology. Brings cell-site simulators under same warrant rules as wiretapping and other searches.
Judges review warrant requests before tracking occurs. Creates accountability and documentation of when and why police use this technology. Ensures neutral party approves surveillance before it happens.
Aligns law with Supreme Court decisions requiring warrants for location tracking. Protects citizens from unreasonable searches under the Constitution. Closes legal gap that previously allowed warrantless tracking.
Warrant requirement creates paper trail and oversight. Makes it harder for individual officers to abuse technology without detection. Holds law enforcement accountable for how tracking tools are used.
Police must wait for judges to approve warrants, taking time in urgent situations. Could delay efforts to find missing persons, prevent crimes, or apprehend suspects. Time delays might allow criminals to escape or harm others.
May require warrants even in terrorism or foreign spy cases where speed is critical. Emergency exceptions could be too narrow for complex security situations. Could limit government's ability to respond quickly to national threats.
Judges must review and approve many more warrant requests from police departments. Creates additional burden on already busy courts. May require hiring more judicial staff and resources.
Police departments must train officers on new warrant procedures. May require updating technology systems and creating new forms. Costs police budgets money for compliance and administrative work.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 4307
Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act
HR 10638
Skills Against Violence Act of 2026
HR 10565
Sexual Abuse Services in Detention Act
HR 10543
PREP Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.