The following is an overview of the ``Report On Applications For Orders Approving The Interception Of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications (Wiretap Report)'' for the year of 1989.
This report is issued by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Washington, District of Columbia 20544 and is available free by calling (202) 633-6094.
It should be noted that this report does not cover warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, nor does it cover electronic surveillance not regulated by the 1968 Wiretap Statute or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Therefore, electronic surveillance where one (or more) parties consent is not covered.
The report fails to report on how many applications were denied. Therefore, while presenting statistics on successful applications for electronic surveillance, it gives the public no idea how much surveillance was desired, but denied by the Courts. Are the court simply rubber stamping prosecutors applications for warrants, like the Foreign Intelligence Court does (having denied only 1 application). Or, are the Courts actually reviewing the substance of the applications?
Most states laws limit the time period of an original order to 30 days. This period, however, can be lengthened by one or more extensions, if the authorizing judge determines that additional surveillance time is warranted. During 1989 the average length of an original authorization was 27 days. There were 519 extensions requested and authorized in 1989; the average length of the extensions was 28 days.
The longest authorization was reported by a judge in Kings County, New York, for monitoring illegal gambling activities in a social club for 387 days. The original 29 day period of interception was extended 13 times. The longest Federal authorization was for 379 days in the Southern District of California in connection with a wire fraud investigation. In contrast, nine wiretaps were in operation for a single day. Intercepts placed for very short time periods usually involve offenses such as homicide, murder for hire, and kidnapping, where life endangering situations may be imminent.
The ``single family dwelling'' continues to be the type of location most frequently reported in applications for communications intercepts. In 1989, a total of 304 intercept devices (40 percent) were authorized to be placed in single family dwellings; 132 (17 percent) were authorized in apartments; and another 133 (17 percent) were authorized for placement in business establishments such as restaurants and hotels.
Since the enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, a specific location need not be included in a Federal application if it contains a statement explaining why such specification is not practical or shows that the person under investigation is purposely thwarting an investigation by changing facilities.
In 1989, there were 4 applications for Federal intercepts involving ``roving'' wiretaps in connection with wire fraud, racketeering and narcotics investigations. Only one jurisdiction at the state level, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Hillsborough County, Florida) reported use of a ``roving'' tap, although the use of roving taps is expected to increase in future state investigations. Combinations of locations were reported in 75 cases; two applications showed multiple dwellings as the sire under surveillance; and 112 applications specified ``other'' locations such as a public pay phone or mobile home. Paging devices and cellular phones sometimes carried by the target of the investigation are also reported under `other.'
In one case, microphone surveillance was installed at a grave stone.
The average cost for a wiretap was $53,108, compared to $49,284 in 1988, and $16,437 in 1979.
The average cost for monitoring wiretaps has grown substantially over the years, but many law enforcement officials firmly believe that the use of electronic surveillance provides a way of penetrating large scale criminal organizations and amassing incriminating evidence otherwise impossible to obtain. For Federal wiretaps with costs reported, the average cost was $80,685 while the average cost of a state wiretap was far less at $31,717. The highest cost for a Federal wiretap occurred in the Southern District of New York where a phone tap placed in an apartment and business cost $902,475, an average of $3,431 per day of the 263-day operation. The highest cost for a single state interception was reported by the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau. The intercept lasted 146 days and cost $581,797.