FCC Issues $48,000 Forfeiture to Jason R. Humphreys for Illegal Signal‑Jamming Device

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ordered a $48,000 forfeiture against Jason R. Humphreys for operating an illegal cellular signal‑jamming device on Interstate 4 in Florida.

On April 29 2024 the FCC released Order FCC‑14‑55A1, announcing that Humphreys willfully used a broadband‑frequency jammer for up to two years, disrupting mobile service for thousands of drivers and interfering with police radio communications. The agency proposes the maximum statutory forfeiture of $16,000 for each of three violations—unauthorized operation, use of an illegal device, and intentional interference—totaling $48,000.

Why Signal‑Jamming Is Illegal

Under the Communications Act of 1934, Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 expressly forbid the import, sale, or operation of any device that intentionally interferes with authorized radio communications. The FCC’s rules (e.g., 47 CFR § 2.805(a) and § 15.1(c)) require that any “intentional radiator” be certified before use—something a jammer cannot achieve because its purpose is to block, not transmit, legitimate signals.

Jammers can cripple emergency 9‑1‑1 calls, disrupt law‑enforcement coordination, and endanger public safety. The FCC has repeatedly warned consumers through alerts and a dedicated jammer tip line. Violations are treated as “willful and repeated,” allowing the Commission to assess up to $16,000 per violation per day.

The Humphreys Case: Facts and Findings

In May 2013, Metro PCS reported intermittent interference along a busy stretch of Interstate 4. FCC investigators traced the source to a blue Toyota Highlander driven by Seffner resident Jason R. Humphreys. Agents from the Tampa Enforcement Bureau observed strong wideband emissions in the 800‑1900 MHz range, consistent with a commercial‑grade cellular jammer.

When the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office stopped the vehicle, police radios lost contact as they approached, confirming real‑time interference. Humphreys admitted to operating the jammer for “16 to 24 months” to prevent other drivers from using cell phones while he was driving. The device was concealed behind the passenger‑seat cover and later seized by law‑enforcement.

Laboratory testing verified the jammer could block three major cellular bands (821‑968 MHz, 1800‑2006 MHz, 2091‑2180 MHz). The interference affected not only consumer phones but also the 800 MHz public‑safety radio system used by Tampa police, raising the severity of the violation.

FCC Legal Basis and the $48,000 Forfeiture

The FCC’s forfeiture authority stems from 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement sets base amounts of $10,000 for operating without authorization, $5,000 for using illegal equipment, and $7,000 for causing interference. However, the statute permits a maximum of $16,000 per violation when the conduct is “willful and repeated.”

• Unauthorized operation: $16,000
• Use of an illegal device: $16,000
• Intentional interference with public‑safety communications: $16,000

Because Humphreys’ actions persisted for up to two years and directly jeopardized emergency responders, the FCC applied the maximum per‑violation penalty, arriving at a total proposed forfeiture of $48,000.

How to Pay or Contest the Forfeiture

Humphreys has 30 calendar days from the release date of the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to either:

1. Submit full payment of $48,000 via check, wire transfer, or credit card, accompanied by FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice).
2. File a written request for reduction or cancellation, providing detailed financial documentation (tax returns, GAAP‑prepared statements, or equivalent).

Payment instructions specify the NAL/Account Number and FRN to be included on Form 159. Checks are payable to the “Federal Communications Commission” and mailed to the St. Louis lockbox. Wire transfers must use ABA 021030004, account 27000001, with a faxed Form 159 to the bank on the same business day. Credit‑card payments follow the same Form 159 process.

Any request for an installment plan must be directed to the FCC’s Chief Financial Officer, Financial Operations, at the address listed in the order. Questions can be directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk (1‑877‑480‑3201 or ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov).

What This Means for Telecom Professionals

Enforcement actions like this serve as a stark reminder that compliance is not optional. For telecom operators, equipment manufacturers, and service providers, the following steps are essential:

• Audit all RF equipment: Verify that every transmitter is FCC‑certified and listed in the Equipment Authorization Database.
• Implement automated monitoring: Use AI‑driven spectrum analysis tools to detect unauthorized emissions in real time.
• Educate staff and customers: Clearly communicate that jamming devices are illegal and outline penalties.

Companies can accelerate these initiatives by leveraging the UBOS platform overview, which offers built‑in compliance dashboards and real‑time alerts. The Workflow automation studio enables rapid creation of remediation workflows when a potential violation is detected.

Startups and SMBs can also benefit from pre‑configured compliance templates. For example, the UBOS templates for quick start include a “Regulatory Alert” template that auto‑generates notifications to stakeholders the moment an anomaly is logged.

Beyond compliance, the incident highlights the growing need for AI‑enhanced security. The AI marketing agents can be repurposed to scan public forums for mentions of illegal jamming equipment, while the Enterprise AI platform by UBOS can integrate with existing network management systems to provide predictive analytics on spectrum usage.

Read the Full FCC Order

For the complete legal text, see the official FCC notice: FCC‑14‑55A1 – Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.

Conclusion

The $48,000 forfeiture against Jason R. Humphreys underscores the FCC’s zero‑tolerance stance on signal‑jamming. As wireless networks become ever more critical to public safety and commerce, telecom operators must adopt proactive, AI‑driven compliance strategies. Leveraging platforms like UBOS can turn regulatory risk into a manageable, automated process—protecting both your bottom line and the public’s right to reliable communication.