Authorized Intercepts of Communication -- Summary statistics

[Data for jurisdictions with statutes authorizing or approving interception of wire or oral communication. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 2519) requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to report to Congress the number and nature of federal and state applications for orders authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications]



Item	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996


Jurisdictions: ¹
With wiretap statutes	19	20	21	24	24	24	24	24	24	26	28	29	29	31	31	32	32	33	34	37	40	41	41	41	41	41	46
Reporting interceptions.	12	14	18	19	19	18	21	19	20	20	22	22	22	20	24	22	24	22	23	25	25	23	23	23	18	19	24
Intercept applications
authorized..	596	816	855	864	728	701	686	626	570	553	564	589	578	648	801	784	754	673	738	763	872	856	919	976	1,154	1,058	1,149
Intercept installations..	582	792	841	812	694	676	635	601	560	533	524	562	518	602	773	722	676	634	678	720	812	802	846	938	1,100	1,024	1,035
Federal..	179	281	205	130	120	106	136	77	81	87	79	106	129	205	277	235	247	233	286	305	321	349	332	444	549	527	574
State	403	511	636	682	574	570	499	524	479	446	445	456	389	397	496	487	429	401	392	415	491	453	514	494	551	497	461

Intercepted communications,
average ²	655	643	600	610	850	654	662	658	738	866	1,058	848	1,082	1,107	1,209	1,320	1,328	1,299	1,251	1,656	1,487	1,584	1,861	1,801	2,139	2,028	1,969
Incriminating.	295	399	303	304	431	305	272	268	205	252	315	190	209	229	298	275	253	230	316	337	321	290	347	364	373	459	422

Persons arrested ³	1,874	2,811	2,861	2,306	2,162	2,234	2,189	2,191	1,825	1,717	1,871	1,735	1,725	1,716	2,393	2,469	2,410	2,226	2,486	2,804	2,057	2,364	2,685	2,428	2,852	2,577	2,464
Convictions ³	151	322	402	409	179	336	358	372	337	368	259	248	453	521	649	660	761	506	543	706	420	605	607	413	772	494	502

Major offense specified:
Gambling	325	570	497	446	381	408	378	265	241	204	199	156	150	157	186	206	189	135	126	111	116	98	66	96	86	95	114
Drugs..	127	126	230	229	199	178	190	237	195	250	282	318	333	360	483	434	348	379	435	471	520	536	634	679	876	732	821
Homicide and assault	21	18	35	47	21	16	10	22	25	29	13	33	31	31	30	25	34	18	14	20	21	21	35	28	19	30	41
Other	123	102	93	142	127	99	108	102	109	70	70	82	64	100	102	119	183	141	163	161	215	201	184	173	173	201	173

1 Jurisdictions include Federal Government, States, and the District of Columbia.
2 Average per authorized installation.
3 Based on information received from intercepts installed in year shown; additional arrests/convictions will occur in subsequent years but are not shown here.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Report on Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral or Electronic Communications, (Wiretap Report), annual.

http://www.uscourts.gov/

* Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications

Reporting Requirements of the Statute

Each federal and state judge is 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 (18 U.S.C. 2519(1)). 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). The report must include the name of the official who applied for the order, the offense under investigation, the type of interception device, the general location of the device, and the duration of the authorized intercept.

Prosecuting officials who applied for interception orders are required to submit reports to the AO no later than January 31 on all orders that were terminated during the previous calendar year. These reports contain information related to the cost of the intercept, the number of days the intercept device was actually in operation, the total number of intercepts, and the number of incriminating intercepts recorded. Results such as arrests, trials, convictions, and the number of motions to suppress evidence related directly to the use of intercepts are also noted.

Neither the judges reports nor the prosecuting officials reports contain the names, addresses, or phone numbers of the parties investigated. The AO is not authorized to collect this information.

These data are tabulations of the number of applications for interceptions that were granted or denied, as reported by judges, as well as the number of authorizations for which interception devices were installed, as reported by prosecuting officials. No statistics are available on the number of devices installed for each authorization.

No report to the AO is required when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication. Examples of such situations include the use of a wire interception to investigate obscene phone calls; the interception of a communication to which a police officer or police informant is a party; the use of a body microphone; or the use of only a pen register (a mechanical device attached to a telephone line to record on paper tape all numbers dialed from that line).

Regulations

The Director of the AO is empowered to develop and revise the reporting regulations and reporting forms for collecting information on intercepts. Copies of the regulations, the reporting forms, and the federal wiretapping statute may be obtained by writing to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Statistics Division, Washington, D.C. 20544.

The Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, any Assistant Attorney General, any acting Assistant Attorney General, or any specially designated Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice may authorize an application to a federal judge for an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. On the state level, applications are made by a prosecuting attorney if such attorney is authorized by a statute of that State to make application to a State court judge of competent jurisdiction.

Many wiretap orders are related to large-scale criminal investigations that cross county and state boundaries. Consequently, arrests, trials, and convictions resulting from these interceptions often do not occur within the same year as the installation of the intercept device. Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must file supplementary reports on additional court or police activity that occurs as a result of intercepts reported in prior years.

*

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/350_authorized_intercepts_of_communication_summary.html

These tables are based on figures supplied by the United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce and are subject to revision by the Census Bureau.

Copyright © 2006 Photius Coutsoukis and Information Technology Associates, all rights reserved.