Enacts the "wireless security enforcement act" to prohibit the sale of wireless signal jammer devices; defines terms; provides that a person is guilty of prohibited use of a wireless signal jammer device if they engage in the possession, manufacture, importation, marketing, or sale of wireless signal jammer devices; requires restitution.
S10515, titled the “wireless security enforcement (WiSE) act,” would create a new state framework aimed at deterring the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale, and possession of wireless signal jammer devices. The bill defines jammer devices broadly as equipment designed to interfere with authorized radio communications, including radar, internet, GPS, and cell phone signals. It would add a new section to the General Business Law to prohibit the sale of these devices and authorize enforcement actions by the Attorney General, as well as civil actions by injured property or business owners.
The bill also amends the Penal Law to create a new Article 157 making prohibited use of a wireless signal jammer device a class D felony. In addition, it requires courts to order restitution to victims harmed directly or indirectly by the offense. The Attorney General could seek injunctions, restitution, disgorgement, damages, civil penalties exceeding $100,000 per violation, and other relief, while private plaintiffs could seek damages exceeding $100,000 per incident or actual damages, whichever is greater, along with injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.
If enacted, the bill would expand New York law by creating both civil and criminal penalties specifically targeting wireless signal jammer devices. It would give state and local law enforcement, the Attorney General, and private parties new tools to stop sales and punish violations, while also exposing violators to felony prosecution, substantial civil penalties, restitution, and business-operating restrictions. The measure would affect sellers, manufacturers, importers, marketers, possessors, and users of jammer devices, as well as property and business owners harmed by interference-related crimes.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded vote to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be framed as a public safety and enforcement bill intended to curb interference with communications and related criminal activity. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the bill’s clear enforcement-oriented purpose.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the definition of “wireless signal jammer device,” the inclusion of possession as a felony-level offense, and the bill’s strong civil enforcement provisions. Critics could question whether the definition sweeps too broadly by referencing devices that interfere with internet, GPS, radar, and cell phone communications, and whether the penalties and private right of action are excessive. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to prevent interference with public safety, communications, and business operations, and to give law enforcement and victims meaningful remedies.