Three men were indicted in Geauga County, Ohio, on four felony counts each for stripping more than 1,000 feet of copper cable from a cell tower, and the county prosecutor is asking federal officials to investigate the contractor he says employed them. The charges are allegations, not convictions, but the case raises hard questions about who is climbing your structures and how they got there.
What the prosecutor alleges
Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz announced the indictments on November 2. According to his office, the men worked for Indiana-based tower maintenance contractor Proentel USA and are foreign nationals who were in the country illegally. The tower is a Crown Castle self-supporting structure in Chester Township carrying T-Mobile equipment, standing about 300 feet above ground level. Removing the cable knocked the site off the air.
Police responded on April 12 and found the cable gone. Surveillance video from nearby showed people climbing the tower over several hours while the cable was removed. Three months later, on July 20, Aurora police in neighboring Portage County used automated license plate reader technology to identify a truck and trailer tied to a similar theft. Chester Township police then connected the same vehicle to the Geauga County site.
The prosecutor's statement does not say whether the men were assigned to a Proentel job when the thefts occurred, how they gained access to the sites, or whether Proentel performed work on the Chester Township tower. The company had not responded to a request for comment by the time the source report was published.
Why the charges are bigger than theft
The two most serious counts, aggravated trespass and criminal mischief, are third-degree felonies. They rest on Ohio's critical-infrastructure law, which covers telecommunications towers when the site is fenced or posted against trespassing. In other words, the state treated the tower as infrastructure, not just as property with scrap value.
The lesser counts, vandalism and theft, are tied to dollar ranges rather than actual costs. The indictment does not say what it cost to replace the lines, re-climb the structure and restore service.
For crews, the practical point is that fencing and posting matter legally. A compound with signage and a locked gate is not only a deterrent, it can change how a trespass is charged.
The access question
The most important line in the story for safety managers is not about the copper. It is about access. If an unvetted worker can reach a climbable structure, the same gap can affect safety, not just security.
A person on a tower who has not been verified, trained or authorized is a fall risk to himself and a hazard to anyone working below or on the same structure. Cutting and pulling cable on a live site also brings hazards a trained crew plans for, including electrical and RF exposure. Those are general hazards of tower work, and the source does not describe any injury in this case.
This is why vetting is a safety control, not only an HR or security function. At a minimum, crew leads and safety managers should be able to answer these questions for any climber on a job:
- Who employs this person, and who is the contractor of record for the site?
- Is the person documented on the job's roster and the site access log?
- Can the climber show training records for the work being performed, such as fall protection and rescue?
- Does the tier of contractor on the site match what the carrier's contract allows?
Recommended certification
Fall Protection Training
$30 · ~30 min online · certificate issued same day · valid 2 years
Also read: Fertilizer Truck Snags Guy Wire, Drops 481-Foot Tower in Illinois · Preventing Trench Fatalities: Key Takeaways from NUCA's Safety Month
A vetting problem the trade has flagged
The source report frames the case against a long-running argument in the industry. Contractors have told Wireless Estimator that pricing pressure pushes work to lower-tier crews that are harder to vet, and that they have raised concerns with federal agencies. One contractor estimated earlier this year that in some regions up to half of the work is done by crews not properly registered in the states where they operate. The report notes those concerns have largely been anecdotal.
The Chester Township case does not prove that estimate. What it does is attach an indictment and federal immigration involvement to a worry that had mostly lived in conversation.
The report also points to a response already underway. Under framework agreements negotiated with NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association, AT&T has committed to eliminating contracting arrangements more than two tiers below the carrier and to requiring NWSA certification for crews. Fewer tiers means fewer places for an unverified crew to enter the chain.
The long chain is where responsibility gets blurry. When a prime hands work to a sub, and the sub hands it to another sub, nobody on the tower may be able to say who checked whom.
When a prime hands work to a sub, and the sub hands it to another sub, nobody on the tower may be able to say who checked whom.
Labor practices are part of the story
The source also describes a prior federal wage case involving Proentel. In June 2024, four Indianapolis technicians sued Proentel USA LLC, a related company called Proentel Indy LLC, and three individuals. They alleged pay of about $16.66 an hour for workweeks averaging 84 hours without overtime, unpaid stretches of weeks at a time, and bonuses never received. Proentel Indy and one individual defendant denied the allegations and said a separate Delaware company, Proentel USA LLC, had employed the workers. The parties also disputed whether the workers were employees or independent contractors.
In June 2025 the defendants agreed to a $35,000 settlement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026. The settlement is not an admission by itself, and it has no direct bearing on the criminal charges. Still, safety managers know that 84-hour weeks and irregular pay are the conditions in which fatigue, shortcuts and turnover thrive. Who pays a crew and how is a fair question when you are deciding whom to trust on your structure.
What crews and managers can do now
As of November 3, no judge had been assigned to the Geauga County case and no arraignment had been scheduled, so the facts will keep developing. The takeaway for the field does not depend on the verdict: a tower is only as safe as the process that decides who is allowed on it.
