Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-193 (2026)

Prohibitions generally; circuit court authorized to order disabling of contraband cell phone service from carrier

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) It is unlawful for any officer or employee of the department, of any county sheriff's department, of any private correctional facility in this state in which offenders are confined, of any municipal or other correctional facility in this state, or for any other person or offender to possess, furnish, attempt to furnish, or assist in furnishing to any offender confined in this state any weapon, deadly weapon, unauthorized electronic device, contraband item, or cell phone or any of its components or accessories to include, but not limited to, Subscriber Information Module (SIM) cards or chargers. It is unlawful for any person or offender to take, attempt to take, or assist in taking any weapon, deadly weapon, unauthorized electronic device, contraband item, cell phone or any of its components or accessories to include, but not limited to, Subscriber Information Module (SIM) cards or chargers on property within the state belonging to the department, a county, a municipality, or other entity that is occupied or used by offenders, except as authorized by law.

(2) The circuit court is authorized to issue an order to disable the contraband cell phone service from the carrier.

Laws, 1978, ch. 394, § 1; Laws, 1986, ch. 423, § 4; Laws, 1996, ch. 420, §; Laws, 1998, ch. 391, § 1; Laws, 2004, ch. 429, § 1; Laws, 2006, ch. 439, § 1; Laws, 2008, ch. 415, § 1; Laws, 2012, ch. 325, § 1, eff. 4/5/2012.

Amended by Laws, 2019, ch. 449, SB 2704,§ 1, eff. 4/3/2019.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Fulgham v. State, 47 So. 3d 698 (Miss. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fulgham v. State, 47 So. 3d 698 (Miss. 2010). · cites it 22× “Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-193 (Rev.2004). [36] ¶ 20.”

Rashad J. Smith v. State of Mississippi, 275 So. 3d 100 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-193 . The second sentence of section 47-5-193 makes the “taking of contraband unlawful.”

Brodrick Akeem Moody v. State of Mississippi, 202 So. 3d 1235 (Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-193 (Rev. 2015) (emphasis added).”

McCollum v. State, 81 So. 3d 1191 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-193. It is clear the statute considers that the possession of contraband and the taking of contraband are two separate crimes.”

Kristi Fulgham v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2009). · cites it 8× “Finding the record 1 Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-193 (Rev. 2004). needs more development, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on (1) whether Fulgham had notice that a cell phone and charger constitute an “electronic device,” and if so, (2) whether they were “unauthorized,” and (3)…”

The Mississippi Bar v. Guy N. Rogers, Jr. (Miss. 2024). · cites it 2× “If Rogers successfully completes his thirty-six-month probation and has the charge against him dismissed under Section 99-15- 26, he shall then have the opportunity to petition for reinstatement to the Bar if he meets the requirements of Rule 12.”

Demario Walker a/k/a Demario Dontez Walker a/k/a Kiriyama San Givonni a/k/a Kiriyama Zyreonia San Givonni v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). “Further, the possession of a cell phone by an inmate is unlawful, Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-193 (Rev. 2015), thus further diminishing Walker’s expectation of privacy in the contraband cell phone’s contents.”

Larry Mitchell v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 1994). · cites it 2× “on; (2) the trial judge erred in refusing to hear appellant's motions to dismiss based on selective prosecution; (3) the trial judge erred in refusing to rule on motions in limine seeking to bar the introduction of the fruits of a poisonous tree on grounds of untimeliness; (4)…”

Mitchell v. State, 699 So. 2d 574 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “on; (2) the trial judge erred in refusing to hear appellant’s motions to dismiss based on selective prosecution; (3) the trial judge erred in refusing to rule on motions in limine seeking to bar the introduction of the fruits of a poisonous tree on grounds of untimeliness; (4)…”

Hicks v. State, 121 So. 3d 960 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-193 (Rev.2011) (emphasis added).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.