Surveillance of Drug Offense Operations Drives 1999 Growth
in Applications for Wiretaps
The number of applications for wiretap orders requested in 1999 rose 2 percent to 1,350, up from 1,331 in 1998, according to the 1999 Wiretap Report, A Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications. Federal or state judges authorized all applications that were requested. In 1999, violation of drug laws remained the major offense investigated through wiretaps, with racketeering as the second largest category. The most common location for the placement of wiretaps was in a single family dwelling. In 1999, a total of 4,372 persons were reported arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The wiretap report is submitted annually to Congress by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
During 1999, 28 jurisdictions reported using wire, oral or electronic surveillance as an investigative tool. The federal government, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and 42 states currently have laws authorizing courts to issue orders permitting such surveillance. The number of applications approved by federal courts in 1999 increased 6 percent, while approvals by state courts fell 2 percent below the 1998 levels. (See attached Table 1.)
Wiretap applications in New York (343 applications), California (76), New Jersey (71), Pennsylvania (69), and Illinois (50) accounted for 81 percent of all authorizations approved by state judges. Most state laws limit the period of surveillance under an original order to 30 days, although extensions may be granted. Among state wiretaps, the longest was a 510-day intercept used in a racketeering investigation in New York County, New York. The longest federal intercept occurred in the Western District of Texas, where a 289-day wiretap was used in a narcotics investigation.
A total of 978 intercept applications, or 72 percent of all applications for intercepts authorized in 1999, cited drug offenses as the most serious offense under investigation. Several criminal offenses may be under investigation, but only the most serious offense is named in an application. The use of federal intercepts to conduct drug investigations was most common in the Central District of California (38 applications) and the Southern District of Florida (34 applications). On the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau obtained authorizations for 135 drug-related intercepts, which accounted for the highest percentage of all drug-related intercepts reported by state or local jurisdictions. Racketeering was cited in 139 of the applications, followed by homicide/assault (62), and gambling (60). (See attached Table 7.)
In 1999, 18 percent of all intercept devices, or 248 wiretaps, were authorized for single-family dwellings, a category that includes houses, rowhouses, townhouses, and duplexes. Forty-nine percent of intercept applications, or 663 applications, specified “other” locations. These may include electronic wiretaps such as mobile telephones, electronic pagers, and cellular telephones.
As of December 31, 1999, a total of 4,372 persons had been arrested based on interceptions reported. Fifteen percent, or 654 persons, were convicted. Federal wiretaps were responsible for the most arrests (66 percent) and convictions (55 percent). A wiretap in the Western District of New York resulted in the arrest of 83 persons, the most arrests of any intercept in 1999. A wiretap in the Southern District of Florida produced the most convictions of any wiretap when an intercept used in a drug investigation resulted in the conviction of 23 of the 26 persons arrested. Among state intercepts, the intercept producing the most arrests took place in Middlesex County, New Jersey, where an intercept in a drug investigation resulted in the arrest of 72 persons.
Each federal and state judge is required to file a written report with the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication (18 U.S.C. 2519(1)). No report to the Administrative Office is required when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication.
A summary report on authorized intercepts is attached. The full report can be found on the Judiciary’s website at www.uscourts.gov.
|
