3
Contents
Report o the Director ....................................................................................................................................5Reporting Requirements o the Statute...........................................................................................................6Regulations ....................................................................................................................................................6Summary and Analysis o Reports by Judges .................................................................................................6Intercept Orders, Extensions, and Locations ...........................................................................................7Criminal Oenses ...................................................................................................................................8Summary o Analysis and Reports by Prosecuting Ocials ............................................................................9Lengths and Numbers o Intercepts .........................................................................................................9Costs o Intercepts ..................................................................................................................................9Methods o Surveillance ..........................................................................................................................9Arrests and Convictions ........................................................................................................................10Summary o Reports or Years Ending December 31, 1999 Through 2009 ..................................................11Supplementary Reports ...............................................................................................................................11
Text Tables
Table 1 Jurisdictions with Statutes Authorizing the Interceptiono Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications ......................................................................................12Table 2Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 2009 .............................................................13Table 3Major Oenses or which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted ..................................................17Table 4Summary o Interceptions o Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .............................................21Table 5Average Cost per Order ........................................................................................................................25Table 6Types o Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictionsor Intercepts Installed .........................................................................................................................28Table 7Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2519 ...............................................................32Table 8Summary o Supplementary Reports or InterceptsTerminated in Calendar Years 1991 Through 2008 ...............................................................................33Table 9 Arrests and Convictions Resulting rom Intercepts Installed inCalendar Years 1999 Through 2009 ......................................................................................................38Table 10Summary o Intercept Orders Issued by Federal Judges January 1 Through December 31, 2009 ................................................................................................39
 
4
Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District CourtsReport by Judges ...................................................................................................................................42Table A-2: United States District CourtsSupplementary Report by Prosecutors .................................................................................................104Table B-1: State CourtsReport by Judges .................................................................................................................................132Table B-2: State CourtsSupplementary Report by Prosecutors .................................................................................................292
 
5
Report o the Director o the AdministrativeOfce o the United States Courts
onApplications for Orders Authorizing or Approvingthe Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
The Omnibus Crime Control and Sae Streets Act o 1968 requires the Administrative Oce o the UnitedStates Courts (AO) to report to Congress the number and nature o ederal and state applications or orders autho-rizing or approving the interception o wire, oral, or electronic communications. The statute requires that specicinormation be provided to the AO, including the oense(s) under investigation, the location o the intercept, thecost o the surveillance, and the number o arrests, trials, and convictions that directly result rom the surveil-lance. This report covers intercepts concluded between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, and providessupplementary inormation on arrests and convictions resulting rom intercepts concluded in prior years. A total o 2,376 intercepts authorized by ederal and state courts were completed in 2009. The number o applications or orders by ederal authorities was 663. The number o applications reported by state prosecutingocials was 1,713, with 24 states providing reports, two more than in 2008. Installed wiretaps were in operationan average o 42 days per wiretap in 2009, compared to 41 days in 2008. The average number o persons whosecommunications were intercepted rose rom 92 per wiretap order in 2008 to 113 per wiretap order in 2009. Theaverage percentage o intercepted communications that were incriminating remained unchanged at 19 percent in2009.Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. § 2519(2)(b) to require that reporting should refect the number o wiretap applications granted or which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented lawenorcement ocials rom obtaining the plain text o communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. In2009, one instance was reported o encryption encountered during a state wiretap; however, this did not preventocials rom obtaining the plain text o the communications.The appendix tables o this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting ocials or 2009. Appendix Table A-1 shows reports led by ederal judges and ederal prosecuting ocials. Appendix Table B-1presents the same inormation or state judges and state prosecuting ocials. Appendix Tables A-2 and B-2 con-tain inormation rom the supplementary reports submitted by prosecuting ocials about additional arrests andtrials in 2009 arising rom intercepts initially reported in prior years.Title 18 U.S.C. § 2519(2) provides that prosecutors must submit wiretap reports to the AO no later than January 31 o each year. This oce, as is customary, sends a letter to the appropriate ocials every year remindingthem o the statutory mandate. Nevertheless, each year reports are received ater the deadline has passed, and theling o some reports may be delayed to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations. A total o 324 ederal pros-ecutors’ reports and 252 state and local prosecutors’ reports were missing in 2009. Inormation received ater thedeadline will be included in next year’s
Wiretap Report
. The AO is grateul or the cooperation and the promptresponse we received rom many ocials around the nation.James C. Du Director April 2010
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more