S-736-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would increase the maximum criminal penalty for smuggling a cell phone or similar communication device into a federal correctional facility from 1 year to 2 years of imprisonment. It applies specifically to staff, contractors, or other non-inmates who provide phones to inmates (a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1791(a)(1)), creating a distinct penalty tier for that offense. It would also require the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to review and update its policies on contraband within one year of enactment.
Who benefits
Correctional officers and prison staff who face threats or violence from inmates using contraband phones to coordinate criminal activity. Victims of crimes planned or directed from inside prisons via contraband phones. Federal prosecutors who would have a stronger sentencing tool to deter and punish smuggling. The general public, to the extent that disrupting in-prison criminal communications reduces crime. The family of Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati, a federal corrections officer murdered in 2013 allegedly by inmates using a contraband phone to coordinate the attack.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted of smuggling phones into federal prisons who would face longer potential sentences. Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates who argue that increased incarceration for non-violent contraband offenses is disproportionate. Families of incarcerated individuals who may rely on contraband phones as a communication channel when official channels are costly or limited. Taxpayers who bear the cost of longer federal incarcerations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that contraband cell phones pose a direct and documented threat to public safety, enabling inmates to coordinate drug trafficking, witness intimidation, and violent crimes — including the murder of Lieutenant Albarati — from behind bars. They contend that the current 1-year maximum penalty is insufficient to deter corrections officers, contractors, and visitors from smuggling devices, and that doubling the maximum to 2 years creates a meaningful deterrent while still leaving sentencing discretion to judges.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that increasing maximum sentences for contraband smuggling has not been shown to meaningfully reduce the flow of phones into prisons, and that the root cause — high demand driven by limited and expensive official communication options for inmates — goes unaddressed. They contend that the BOP policy review provision lacks enforcement teeth, and that resources would be better directed toward detection technology and communication access programs than toward longer sentences for what is often a non-violent offense.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional tension is raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under Article I and the Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate conduct within federal prisons. The Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle is relevant to sentencing, but a 2-year maximum for smuggling contraband into a federal facility is well within established norms and would not likely raise a constitutional challenge.
Checks and balances
Congress increases the statutory maximum penalty; federal judges retain discretion to sentence below that maximum; the Bureau of Prisons Director is directed to conduct a policy review, but Congress does not mandate specific policy outcomes from that review.
Historical precedent
The Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010 previously criminalized the possession of cell phones by federal inmates under 18 U.S.C. §1791, establishing the statutory framework this bill amends.