Like many modern systems, his devices interface directly with his smartphone. The phone displays his real-time glucose readings, issues urgent alerts when his blood sugar drops or spikes, and allows him to review insulin delivery data.
Recently, he went to a local courthouse to complete routine paperwork with the county clerk. He was not there for a hearing. He was not entering a courtroom. He was simply handling administrative business. At the security checkpoint, he was told that mobile phones were not permitted in the building and that he would need to return his device to his vehicle.
For most people, that would be an inconvenience. For him, it meant being separated from a core component of his medical management system.
This is not a hypothetical policy debate. It is a real-world collision between outdated device restrictions and federal disability law.
The Smartphone as a Medical Interface
Continuous glucose monitoring systems have evolved significantly over the past decade. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized CGM systems that transmit real-time glucose data directly to compatible smartphones [1]. In many cases, the smartphone serves as the primary display and alert mechanism.
Modern insulin pump systems are also increasingly integrated with mobile applications. Platforms such as the t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology are designed to work alongside digital interfaces that allow users to monitor insulin delivery and system performance [2]. The FDA has formally recognized that certain mobile software functions constitute regulated medical devices, issuing guidance on mobile medical applications and software as a medical device [3].
In practical terms, that means a smartphone may function as part of a regulated therapeutic system. Removing access to it is not the same as asking someone to silence a ringtone. It can mean disabling access to glucose trend data and urgent hypoglycemia alerts.
For individuals with Type 1 diabetes, uninterrupted insulin therapy and glucose monitoring are medically necessary. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that people with Type 1 diabetes require lifelong insulin and careful blood glucose management to prevent acute complications, including severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis [4].
Stress can also affect blood glucose levels [4]. Even routine administrative tasks in a government building can trigger physiological changes. Separating someone from their monitoring interface in that context introduces avoidable risk.
ADA Obligations in Public Buildings
Courthouses and county clerk offices are operated by state or local governments. As such, they are subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in public services and programs [5].
Under Department of Justice guidance, public entities must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the service or create a direct threat to safety [6].
A blanket prohibition on mobile devices may appear neutral on its face. However, when that policy prevents a person with a disability from accessing a medically necessary device, it raises significant ADA concerns. The issue is not whether security rules exist for a legitimate reason. The issue is whether those rules can accommodate individuals whose “phones” are also medical controllers.
Reasonable modifications could include allowing the device to remain powered on but unused for recording, visually inspecting it at security, or requiring it to stay in the individual’s possession without being handled by others. What is not reasonable is forcing a person to choose between accessing government services and maintaining safe control of their medical condition.
The Security Policy Gap
Restrictions on recording devices in government buildings and court facilities often predate the era in which smartphones became medical infrastructure. Historically, the concern was cameras, audio recorders, and disruptions to proceedings. Today, nearly every smartphone contains those capabilities by default.
Yet the legal and administrative frameworks governing secure facilities have not fully adapted to the dual-use nature of modern mobile devices. A device capable of recording is also the device that may issue a life-saving alert when blood glucose falls to a dangerous level.
When my brother was told to return his phone to his vehicle, the security officer was enforcing policy. But the policy itself reflects a technological assumption that is no longer accurate: that mobile phones are optional consumer electronics rather than integrated components of regulated healthcare systems.
A Broader Legislative Problem
Mobile devices are now central to healthcare management, financial authentication, identity verification, and accessibility tools. The FDA’s guidance on mobile medical applications acknowledges that software running on consumer hardware can meet the definition of a medical device [3].
Public policy, however, has not consistently caught up. As more medical systems rely on smartphones as primary interfaces, rigid device bans in public buildings risk disproportionately burdening people with chronic medical conditions.
The ADA was enacted in 1990, long before smartphones existed. Its core mandate, however, remains clear: individuals with disabilities must have equal access to public services [5]. Equal access in 2026 requires recognizing the technological realities of modern medicine.
Modern Devices Require Modern Rules
My brother was not trying to record a proceeding. He was trying to complete paperwork. Yet he was placed in a position where compliance with a security rule could have compromised his medical safety.
This is not an isolated issue. As healthcare becomes increasingly digitized and mobile-centric, conflicts between security policies and disability rights will become more common unless institutions proactively modernize their standards.
A smartphone that functions as part of an FDA-regulated medical system should be treated accordingly. Public entities must update policies, train staff, and implement clear accommodation procedures that reflect current technology.
For some Americans, a smartphone is not a convenience. It is a medical lifeline. The law must evolve to ensure that access to public services never requires someone to disconnect from their own healthcare.
About the Author
Len Noe is a Solutions Architect at BeyondTrust, Transhuman, Podcaster, International Cyber Security Speaker, Author, Technical Evangelist, and Biohacker with 11 implanted microchips. A former blackhat and ex-1% motorcycle club member with more than 30 years in technology, he has presented in over 70 countries and is featured in the documentary I Am Machine, which premiered at DEF CON 2025.
References
[1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “FDA authorizes first fully interoperable continuous glucose monitoring system.” https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-first-fully-interoperable-continuous-glucose-monitoring-system
[2] Tandem Diabetes Care. “t:slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology.” https://www.tandemdiabetes.com/products/t-slim-x2-insulin-pump
[3] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications.” https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/policy-device-software-functions-and-mobile-medical-applications
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Type 1 Diabetes.” https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type1.html
[5] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131–12165 (Title II). https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/
[6] U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. “ADA Requirements: Effective Communication.” https://www.ada.gov/resources/effective-communication/