Newsroom

Dick Carelli, 202-502-2600
Printer-friendly

May 1, 2006 — The number of orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications by federal and state courts increased 4 percent in 2005, for a total of 1,773 applications. Of the total applications, 625 were submitted to federal judges, down 14 percent from 2004, and 1,148 applications were submitted to state judges, an increase of 17 percent over 2004. Orders for 22 wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps were actually installed. In addition, one application was denied. As of December 31, 2005, a total of 4,674 persons had been arrested based on interceptions terminated in 2005, 4 percent more than in 2004. Information on 2005 interceptions is available in The 2005 Wiretap Report, posted on-line, along with previous reports, at www.uscourts.gov/library/wiretap.html.

The federal government, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and 44 states currently have laws that authorize courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral or electronic surveillance. During 2005, a total of 23 jurisdictions reported using at least one of these types of surveillance.

Wiretap applications in New York (391 applications), California (235 applications), New Jersey (218 applications), and Florida (72 applications) accounted for 80 percent of all applications approved by state judges. The most common location, specified in 91 percent of the federal and state wiretap applications authorized in 2005, was "portable device, carried by/on individual." The next most common location, specified in 3 percent of the applications, was a "personal residence." One percent of the applications were authorized for business establishments. Two percent were authorized for "other" locations, which included such places as prisons, pay telephones in public areas, and motor vehicles. A combination of locations was authorized in 3 percent of the applications.

The most common method of surveillance reported was "phone wire communication," which includes all telephones (land line, cellular, cordless and mobile). Telephone wiretaps accounted for 95 percent (1,609 cases) of intercepts installed in 2005. Of those, 1,537 wiretaps involved cellular/mobile telephones, either as the only type of device under surveillance (1,495) or in combination with other types of telephones (42 cases.) Electronic wiretaps, which includes such devices as digital display pagers, voice pagers, fax machines, and transmissions via computer such as electronic mail, accounted for 1 percent (23 cases) of intercepts installed in 2005. Oral wiretaps including microphones were used in 1 percent (18 cases) of wiretaps. A combination of surveillance methods was used in 3 percent of intercepts (44 cases.)

Violations of drug laws and racketeering laws were the two most prevalent types of offenses investigated through wiretaps. Homicide/assault was the third most frequently recorded offense category, and gambling the fourth. Wiretaps terminated in 2005 resulted in the conviction of 776 persons as of December 31, 2005, which was 17 percent of the number of the 4,674 persons arrested. Federal wiretaps were responsible for 50 percent of the arrests and 31 percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps during 2005.

On the apparent decrease in federal wiretaps, the Department of Justice noted, "While it appears that the number of federal wiretap-assisted investigations conducted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518(1) declined last year, the numbers reported in the Administrative Office’s report do not reflect a number of investigations not reported to the Department by the reporting deadline, as well as a large number of complex and/or sensitive investigations that continued into 2006 and thus could not be reported at this time. We believe that if these matters could have been included in the report, the report would reflect an increase in the use of federal wiretap-assisted investigations during Calendar Year 2005."

Each federal and state judge is required to file a written report with the Director of the Administrative Office on each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication. 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 that were terminated during the previous calendar year. No report to the AO is required for the use of pen register, or when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication. The 2005 Wiretap Report does not include interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

# # #