NEWS RELEASE

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

1998 Applications For Wiretaps Tied to Surveillance of Narcotics Operations

The number of applications for wiretap orders authorized by federal and state courts in 1998 totaled 1,329, up 12 percent from 1997. The increase was due primarily to a 24 percent increase in state wiretap applications last year. Federal wiretap applications dropped one half of one percent from 569 to 566. Increases reflect the continued growth in applications involving the surveillance of narcotics operations. The information is compiled in the 1998 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. The Wiretap Report is submitted annually to Congress by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Forty-two states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and the federal government currently have laws that authorize courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral, or electronic surveillance. During 1998, 26 of these jurisdictions reported using at least one of the three types of surveillance as an investigative tool.

Between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1998, 1,329 applications were authorized, including 566 by federal judges and 763 by state judges. Wiretap applications in New York (373 applications), New Jersey (84 applications), Pennsylvania (68), California (52), and Florida (44) accounted for 81 percent of all authorizations approved by state judges. Of the interceptions authorized, intercept devices were installed pursuant to 1,245 orders.

In 1998, 72 percent of all applications for intercepts -- 955 cases -- cited narcotics 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 (49 applications), and the Southern District of Florida (36 applications). On the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau again conducted the most drug investigations, obtaining authorizations for 186 drug-related intercepts, or 37 percent of all drug-related intercepts reported by state jurisdictions in 1998. Nationwide, racketeering (153 orders) and gambling (93 applications) were specified in 12 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of authorizations as the most serious offenses under investigation in 1998. In 1997 racketeering was specified in 93 applications.

During 1998, the average length of an original authorization was 28 days, and the average length for an extension was 27 days. A total of 1,164 extensions were requested and authorized in 1998, up 13 percent from last year’s 1,028. The most common location for the placement of wiretaps in 1998, as in 1997, was a single-family dwelling, a type of location that includes houses, rowhouses, townhouses, and duplexes. The electronic wiretap (which includes devices such as digital display pagers, voice pagers, cellular phones and electronic mail) was the most common method of surveillance used. Electronic wiretaps accounted for 46 percent of intercepts installed in 1998. Telephone wiretaps constituted 40 percent of intercept devices installed.

As a result of interceptions terminated in 1998, a total of 3,450 persons had been arrested, 26 percent of whom were convicted. Although the majority of convictions in 1997 resulted from federal wiretaps, state wiretaps were responsible for the most convictions in 1998 (57 percent).

Each federal and state judge is required to file a written report with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) on each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication (18 U.S. C. 2519(1)). Prosecuting officials who applied for intercept orders are required to submit reports to the AO on all orders terminated during the previous calendar year. No report to the AO is required when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication (for example, to investigate obscene phone calls), when a police officer or informant is a party, when a body microphone is used, or when a pen register on a telephone line is used to record all numbers dialed from that line.

A summary report on authorized intercepts is attached. The full report can be found on the Judiciary’s homepage at www.uscourts.gov.

Attachment