Contact:

Karen Redmond, 202-502-2600
Print

April 27, 2009 — A total of 1,891 applications to federal and state judges for orders authorizing the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications were reported in 2008. No applications were denied. This is a 14 percent decrease in the total of applications reported, compared to 2007. Fewer states—22 states compared to 24 in 2007—reported wiretap activity and the number of applications approved by state judges, 1,505, was down 14 percent from 2007. Federal judges approved 386 applications, down 16 percent from 2007. Orders for 28 wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps actually were installed. Additional data on applications for wiretaps for the period January 1 through December 31, 2008, is available online in the 2008 Wiretap Report.

Related Items Table 7: Authorized Intercepts for Calendar Years 1998-2008 (pdf)

In 2008,

• 95 percent of the locations specified in wiretap applications authorized in 2008, were “portable device, carried by/on individual,” such as portable digital pagers and cellular telephones. Authorizations were made for 11 “roving” wiretaps in 2008, all for state investigations.
• 84 percent of all applications for intercepts cited a drug offense as the most serious offense under investigation.

The use of federal intercepts to conduct drug investigations was most common in the Central District of California (33 applications), the Southern District of New York (30), and the Southern District of Texas (21). On the state level, the largest numbers were reported by Los Angeles County of California (164 applications), Queens County of New York (118), and the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau (101). Nationwide, homicide/assault was specified in 5 percent of applications as the most serious offense under investigation. Racketeering was specified in 3 percent of applications and gambling was specified in almost 3 percent.

• 4,133 persons, as of December 31, 2008, had been arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Wiretaps terminated in 2008 resulted in the conviction of 810 persons. Federal wiretaps were responsible for 38 percent of the arrests and 29 percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps during 2008.
• 19 percent of intercepted communications were incriminating in 2008, compared to 30 percent in 2007.

The Central District of California reported the most arrests—118 persons— arising from a federal wiretap terminated in 2008 in a racketeering investigation. The South District of Ohio reported the most convictions for any federal wiretap. Intercepts authorized in a narcotics investigation there produced convictions for 30 of the 31 persons arrested. In the Northern District of Texas, a wiretap allowed identification of illegal activities that resulted in the arrest of 17 individuals and the seizure of 370 kilos of cocaine, 360 pounds of methamphetamine, 20 weapons, 5 vehicles and $8 million in cash.

A wiretap in Maricopa County, Arizona, caused the most arrests of any state intercept in 2008. Sixty-five persons were arrested in connection with a narcotics investigation. The leader among state intercepts in producing convictions was a wiretap authorized in the 11th Judicial District (Hamilton), Tennessee, for a narcotics investigation, which resulted in the conviction of 40 of the 43 persons arrested. In a multi-jurisdiction case in San Diego County involving a cellular telephone wiretap, 52 kilos of cocaine and $2 million were seized. Forty-seven individuals were arrested and 25 convicted.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to report to Congress the number and nature of federal and state applications for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Each federal and state judge is required to file a written report with the Director of the AO on each application for an order authorizing an intercept. This report is to be furnished within 30 days of the denial of the application or the expiration of the court order (after all extensions have expired). Prosecuting officials who applied for interception orders are required to submit reports to the AO each January on all orders terminated during the previous calendar year. No report is required when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication, or when a pen register is used, unless used in conjunction with any reportable wiretap devises.