|
April 30, 2008 — The number of intercepted wire, oral or electronic communications — also known as wiretaps — authorized by federal and state courts in 2007 was 20 percent higher than in 2006. Courts issued 2,208 such orders in 2007, compared to 1,839 in 2006, according to The 2007 Wiretap Report.
The complete report contains information on interceptions concluded between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007. A summary of the authorized intercepts reported for calendar years 1997-2007 is available in Table 7.
The number of requests by federal authorities for court orders fell less than 1 percent, to 457. The number of requests by state authorities increased by 27 percent, to 1,751. Authorities in 24 states reported seeking court orders in 2007, one more than in 2006. Installed wiretaps were in operation an average of 44 days, compared to 40 days in 2006. The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted decreased from 122 per wiretap order in 2006 to 94 per wiretap order in 2007.
The average percentage of wiretaps that were incriminating was 30 percent last year, compared to 20 percent in 2006. As in 2006, no applications for wiretap authorizations were denied by either state or federal courts in 2007. The total number of authorized wiretaps has grown in each of the five past calendar years, beginning in 2003.
Courts in four states accounted for 79 percent of all applications approved by state judges. They were California (560 applications), New York (518 applications), New Jersey (200 applications) and Maryland (108 applications). Nationwide, a total of 117 separate state jurisdictions (including counties, cities, and judicial districts) submitted reports, which is 13 more than in 2006.
The Department of Justice noted that in recent years it and other federal law enforcement agencies “have exercised special scrutiny when submitting information . . . Statistics indicate that if all intercepts undertaken for federal investigations in 2007 were reported, the 2007 Wiretap Report would not reflect any decrease in the use of court-approved electronic surveillance by the agencies.” The department added: “Any matters that could not be included in the 2007 data should be reported in future editions of the Wiretap Report as soon as the underlying investigations are completed and/or the matters become unsealed.”
Federal and state judges are required to file a written report with the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) on each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication. This report is be furnished within 30 days of the denial of the application or the expiration of the court order. No report to the AO is required when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication. Also, no report is required for the use of a pen register (a device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line) unless used in conjunction with any wiretap devices whose use must be reported. The 2007 Wiretap Report does not include interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Prosecuting officials who apply for interception orders are required to submit reports to the AO each January on all orders terminated during the previous calendar years. However, the filing of some reports may be delayed to avoid jeopardizing continuing investigations, or some reports may be received after the deadline. Missing reports will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report.
|
Newsroom
