Contents
Report of the Director .............................................................................................................................. 5
Reporting Requirements of the Statute ..................................................................................................... 6
Regulations .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges ............................................................................................ 7
Authorized Lengths of Intercepts ....................................................................................................... 7
Locations ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Offenses ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials .................................................................... 10
Nature of Intercepts ......................................................................................................................... 10
Costs of Intercepts ........................................................................................................................... 10
Arrests and Convictions ................................................................................................................... 11
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1988, Through 1998 ........................................... 12
Supplementary Reports ................................................................................................................... 12

Text Tables
Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .................................................................................. 13
Table 2
Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 1998 ........................................................ 14
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted ............................................ 18
Table 4
Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications......................................... 22
Table 5
Average Cost per Order.................................................................................................................... 25
Table 6
Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions
for Intercepts Installed ..................................................................................................................... 29
Table 7
Summary Report on Authorized Intercepts Granted
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519 ............................................................................................................. 33
Table 8
Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts
Terminated in Calendar Years 1989 Through 1997 .......................................................................... 34
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1988 Through 1998 ................................................................................................ 38

3

Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges ............................................................................................................................. 40
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ............................................................................................. 84
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ........................................................................................................................... 106
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ........................................................................................... 216

4

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 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 requires the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts (AO) to report to Congress the number and nature of federal and state applications for
orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The statute
requires that specific information be provided to the AO, including the offense(s) under investigation, the
location of the intercept, the cost of the surveillance, and the number of arrests, trials, and convictions that
directly result from the surveillance. This report covers intercepts concluded between January 1, 1998, and
December 31, 1998, and provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts concluded in prior years.
From 1997 to 1998, the total number of intercepts authorized by federal and state courts increased 12
percent to 1,329, reflecting continued growth in applications involving the surveillance of narcotics
operations (up 10 percent). Following a 2 percent decrease in 1997, the number of applications for orders
by federal authorities remained essentially stable in 1998, dropping one half of one percent. The number of
applications reported by state prosecuting officials increased 24 percent over last year, with more
jurisdictions providing reports than in prior years. The number of federal intercept applications authorized
has grown over the last 10 years, increasing 93 percent from 1988 to 1998, while state applications have
increased 71 percent since 1988. The number of intercepts employed in drug-related investigations also has
experienced significant growth. Drug offenders were targeted in 955 of the interceptions concluded in 1998,
compared to 435 in 1988, a 120% increase.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for
1998. Appendix Table A-1 shows reports filed by federal judges and federal prosecuting officials. Appendix
Table B-1 presents the same information for state judges and state prosecuting officials. Appendix Tables A2 and B-2 contain information from the supplementary reports submitted by prosecuting officials about
additional arrests and trials in 1998 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) mandates the submission of wiretap reports to the AO no later than
January 31 of each year. This office, as is customary, sends a letter to the appropriate officials every year
reminding them of the statutory mandate. Nevertheless, each year reports are received after the deadline has
passed. Information received after the deadline will be included in next year's Wiretap Report; the number
of missing state and local prosecutors’ reports was lower in 1998 compared to 1997. The AO is grateful for
the cooperation and the prompt responses we received from officials around the nation.

Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director
April 1999
5

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

Reporting Requirements of
the Statute

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).

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 each January 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 also are 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.
This report tabulates 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 authorized order.

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 largescale 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
6

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. Appendix Tables A-2 and
B-2 describe the additional activity reported by
prosecuting officials in their supplementary reports.
Table 1 shows that 45 jurisdictions (the
federal government, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and 42 states) currently have laws
that authorize courts to issue orders permitting
wire, oral, or electronic surveillance. During 1998,
a total of 26 jurisdictions reported using at least
one of these three types of surveillance as an
investigative tool.

same reference number is used for any supplemental information reported for a communications
intercept in future volumes of the Wiretap Report.
A total of 1,329 applications – an increase of
12 percent – were authorized in 1998, including
566 by federal judges and 763 by state judges.
Judges denied two applications. The number of
applications approved by federal judges in 1998
remained essentially stable, dropping one half of
one percent below the previous year’s total, while
approvals by state judges increased 24 percent.
Wiretap applications in New York (373 applications), New Jersey (84 applications), Pennsylvania (68 applications), California (52 applications),
and Florida (44 applications) accounted for 81
percent of all authorizations approved by state
judges.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges

Authorized Lengths
of Intercepts

Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 1998 appear in Appendix
Tables A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting
numbers used in the appendix tables are reference
numbers assigned by the AO; these numbers do
not correspond to the authorization or application
numbers used by the reporting jurisdictions. The

Table 2 presents the number of intercept
orders issued in each jurisdiction that provided
reports, the number of amended intercept orders
issued, the number of extensions granted, the
average length of the original authorizations and
their extensions, the total number of days the
intercepts were actually in operation, and the

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of authorizations
Number of authorizations
800

600

400

200

0
1988

1989

Federal
Federal
State

1990

1991

1992

1993
Calendar Year

State

7

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Percent of Total Authorizations

State
57.4%

State
60.3%

Federal
42.6%

Federal
39.7%

1998

1988

30-day order to be extended 19 times and kept the
intercept in operation 600 days. In contrast, 59
state intercepts each were in operation for less
than a week.

nature of the location where each interception of
communications occurred. Most state laws limit
the period of surveillance under an original order
to 30 days. This period, however, can be lengthened by one or more extensions if the authorizing
judge determines that additional time for surveillance is warranted.
During 1998, the average length of an original authorization was 28 days. A total of 1,164
extensions were requested and authorized in 1998
(an increase of 13 percent). The average length of
an extension was 27 days. The longest federal
intercept occurred in the Eastern District of New
York, where the original 30-day order was extended seven times to complete a 240-day wiretap
used in a loansharking investigation. Among state
wiretaps terminating during 1998, the longest
was a unique wiretap in New York that was in
operation for more than five years, nearly three
times longer than any wiretap reported since
tracking began in 1968. A narcotics investigation
by the New York Organized Crime Task Force
required the original 30-day order to be extended
146 times and the intercept to last 2,073 days.
Because its duration would distort the 1998 summary information, data from this wiretap are
excluded from computations of averages reflected
in the summary tables in the report, but are
reported in Table B-1. The next-longest state
wiretap was used in a narcotics investigation in
Los Angeles County, California, that required a

Locations
The most common location for the placement of wiretaps in 1998 was a “single-family
dwelling,” a type of location that includes houses,
rowhouses, townhouses, and duplexes. Table 2
shows that in 1998 a total of 23 percent (309
wiretaps) of all intercept devices were authorized
for single-family dwellings; 9 percent (126 wiretaps) were authorized for apartments; and 7 percent (87 wiretaps) were authorized for business
establishments such as restaurants and hotels.
Since the enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, a specific location need not be cited in a federal application if the
application contains a statement explaining why
such specification is not practical or shows “a
purpose, on the part of that person (under investigation), to thwart interception by changing facilities” (see 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)). In these cases,
prosecutors use “roving” wiretaps to target a specific person rather than a specific telephone or
location. The Intelligence Authorization Act of
1999, enacted on October 20, 1998, amended 18
U.S.C. 2518 (11)(b) so that a specific facility need
not be cited “if there is probable cause to believe
that actions by the person under investigation
8

with the proliferation of these types of communication devices. Combinations of locations were
cited in 198 federal and state applications (15
percent) in 1998; of this number, 21 were reported to include “roving” in combination with
other location information.

could have the effect of thwarting interception
from a specified facility.” The amendment also
specifies that “the order authorizing or approving
the interception is limited to interception only for
such time as it is reasonable to presume that the
person identified in the application is or was
reasonably proximate to the instrument through
which such communication will be or was transmitted.”
For the 1998 report, federal authorities reported that they specifically employed “roving”
wiretaps for one racketeering investigation in the
District of New Jersey. On the state level, 23 roving
wiretaps were reported: 1 in Maryland for a
murder investigation; 1 in Louisiana and 2 in New
Jersey for narcotics operations; 12 in New York for
racketeering investigations; and a total of 7 in
Illinois (4 for narcotics investigations and 3 for
assault investigations).
Forty-four percent of intercept applications
(584 applications) specified “other” locations.
Applications specifying other locations, which
include mobile telephones, electronic pagers, and
cellular telephones, have increased in recent years

Offenses
Violations of narcotics, racketeering, and
gambling laws remain the most prevalent types of
offenses investigated through communications
intercepts. Table 3 indicates that 72 percent of all
applications for intercepts (955 cases) authorized
in 1998 cited “narcotics” as the most serious
offense under investigation. Many applications for
court orders indicated several criminal offenses
under investigation, but Table 3 includes only the
most serious criminal offense named in an application. 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 conducted the most drug

Drugs as the Major Offense

1200

955

1000
879

870
821

800

732
679
634

600
435

471

400

520

352
303

289

536

374
320

285

296

278

1993

1994

326

328

316

1995

1996

1997

200

0
1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

Calendar

Drugs

Other Offenses

9

1998

than 800. The most active federal intercept occurred in the Northern District of California,
where a 14-day fraud investigation installation at
a business involved more than 120 agent workdays and resulted in an average of 818 interceptions per day. For state authorizations, the most
active investigation was a 22-day narcotics operation in Maricopa County, Arizona, that produced
an average of 329 intercepts per day. Nationwide,
in 1998 the average number of persons whose
communications were intercepted per order in
which intercepts were installed was 190. The
average number of communications intercepted
was 1,858 per wiretap; an average of 350 intercepts per installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence. The percentage of incriminating
intercepts decreased slightly from 20 percent of
interceptions in 1997 to 19 percent in 1998.
Table 6 presents the type of surveillance
device used for each intercept installed. The most
common method of surveillance reported was the
electronic wiretap, which includes devices such as
digital display pagers, voice pagers, cellular phones,
and electronic mail. Electronic wiretaps accounted
for 46 percent (576 cases) of intercepts installed in
1998. Telephone wiretaps, which in previous
years were the most common type of wiretap,
constituted 40 percent (494 cases) of intercept
devices installed; microphones were used in 4
percent of intercepts (50 cases). A combination of
devices was involved in 10 percent of intercepts
(125 cases).

investigations, obtaining authorizations for 186
drug-related intercepts, which accounted for 37
percent of all drug-related intercepts reported by
state jurisdictions in 1998. Nationwide, racketeering (153 orders) and gambling (93 orders)
were specified in 12 percent and 7 percent of
authorizations, respectively, as the most serious
offense under investigation.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Prosecuting
Officials
In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 2519(2),
prosecuting officials must submit reports to the
AO no later than January 31 of each year for
intercepts terminated during the previous calendar year. Appendix Tables A-1 and B-1 contain
information from all prosecutors’ reports submitted for 1998. Judges submitted 59 reports for
which the AO received no corresponding reports
from prosecuting officials. For these authorizations, the phrase “No Prosecutor’s Report” appears
in the appendix tables. Some of the prosecutors’
reports may have been received too late to include
in this report, and some prosecutors delayed filing
reports to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations. Information received after the deadline will
be included in next year’s Wiretap Report.

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,329 authorizations made in 1998
for communication interceptions, intercept devices were installed pursuant to 1,245 orders.
Table 4 presents information on the average number of intercepts per order, the number of persons
whose communications were intercepted, the total number of communications intercepted, and
the number of incriminating intercepts. Wiretaps
varied extensively with respect to the above characteristics. As was the case in calculating the
average length of intercepts, a wiretap by the New
York Organized Crime Task Force that lasted
more than five years was excluded from calculations of these averages to preclude distorting the
1998 summary information; data for this wiretap
appear in Table B-1 under the listing for A.O.
Number 1 for that jurisdiction.
The average number of interceptions per day
reported in 1998 ranged from less than 1 to more

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses
related to intercept orders in 1998. The expenditures noted reflect the cost of installing intercept
devices and monitoring communications for the
1,184 authorizations for which reports included
cost data. The average cost of intercept devices
installed in 1998 was $57,669, a six percent
decrease from 1997. For federal wiretaps for which
expenses were reported in 1998, the average cost
was $73,404, an 11 percent decrease from 1997.
Despite the overall decline, the average cost of a
state wiretap increased 19 percent to $44,111 in
1998. The unique five-year wiretap in New York
was excluded from the calculation of average cost
to preclude distorting the 1998 summary information; the cost data from that wiretap can be
10

Average Cost of Wiretaps

Average Cost (in Thousands of Dollars)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Calendar Year

County District Attorney’s office in New York
reported that a 30-day wiretap approved as part of
a gambling investigation resulted in the arrest of
eight persons, five of whom were convicted, and
noted that the interceptions were instrumental in
obtaining convictions: “When the targets heard
their own voices on the tapes, the impact (was)
obvious.” The State Attorney’s office in the 17th
Judicial Circuit (Broward County), Florida, reported that a 1998 wiretap in use for six days in a
racketeering investigation contributed to five arrests and four subsequent convictions. In the 9th
Judicial Circuit (Orange/Osceola County), Florida,
a cellular telephone wiretap used in a narcotics
investigation led to the arrest of ten persons and
three convictions; the report noted that the wiretap
was essential to obtaining evidence to prosecute
the organized criminal activity being investigated.
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons
arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions
terminated in 1998. As of December 31, 1998, a
total of 3,450 persons had been arrested based on
electronic surveillance activity, 26 percent (911
persons) of whom were convicted (an increase
over the 1997 conviction rate of 18 percent).
Although the majority of convictions in 1997

found in Table B-1. For additional information,
see Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) and
B-1 (state).

Arrests and Convictions
Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining arrests and convictions. The Western District
of North Carolina reported a federal telephone
wiretap that led to the arrest of 21 persons and 16
subsequent convictions, and noted, “Without the
authorized interception, the investigators would
not have learned that the drug trafficking activities of the defendants were related to a multi-state
drug trafficking organization which was responsible for the importation and distribution of hundreds of kilograms of cocaine and cocaine base.”
A federal wiretap in the Southern District of New
York led to the conviction of six persons in a
money laundering case and resulted in the targeted business’s forfeiting $1 million. In the
Northern District of Illinois, a cellular telephone
wiretap in use for 19 days resulted in the arrest of
three persons and the seizure of $6.5 million in
cash, 1,476 kilos of cocaine, five weapons, and
six vehicles. On the state level, the Schnectady
11

the locations of intercepts; the major offenses
investigated; average costs; and the average number of persons intercepted, communications intercepted, and incriminating intercepts. From 1988
to 1998, the number of intercept applications
authorized increased 80 percent. The majority of
wiretaps involved drug-related investigations,
ranging from 59 percent of all applications authorized in 1988 to 72 percent in 1998.

resulted from federal wiretaps, state wiretaps were
responsible for the most convictions in 1998 (57
percent). A wiretap in the Northern District of
Ohio resulted in the most convictions of any single
federal intercept in 1998. This wiretap, used in a
narcotics investigation, resulted in the arrest of 59
persons and the conviction of 54 persons. Among
state intercepts, the wiretap producing the most
convictions took place in Los Angeles County,
California, where an intercept conducted as part
of a narcotics investigation resulted in the conviction of 64 of the 65 persons arrested; the nexthighest number of convictions was reported for an
intercept conducted by the New York Organized
Crime Task Force, which led to the conviction of
56 of the 68 persons arrested. In Pontontoc County,
Mississippi, an intercept used in a narcotics investigation resulted in the conviction of each of the 41
persons arrested. Because criminal cases involving
the use of electronic surveillance may still be
under active investigation, the results of many of
the intercepts concluded in 1998 may not have
been reported. Prosecutors will report the costs,
arrests, trials, motions to suppress evidence, and
convictions related directly to these intercepts in
future supplementary reports, which will be noted
in Appendix Tables A-2 or B-2 of subsequent
volumes of the Wiretap Report.

Supplementary Reports
Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must file supplementary reports on additional court or police activity occurring as a result
of intercepts reported in prior years. Because
many wiretap orders are related to large-scale
criminal investigations that cross county and state
boundaries, supplementary reports are necessary
to fulfill reporting requirements. Arrests, trials,
and convictions resulting from these interceptions often do not occur within the same year in
which the intercept was first reported. Appendix
Tables A-2 and B-2 provide detailed data from all
supplementary reports submitted.
During 1998, a total of 2,368 arrests, 2,435
convictions, and additional costs of $3,850,018
resulted from wiretaps completed in previous
years. Table 8 summarizes additional prosecution
activity by jurisdiction for intercepts terminated
in the years noted. Most of the additional activity
reported in 1998 involved wiretaps terminated in
1997. Intercepts concluded in 1997 led to 57
percent of arrests, 50 percent of convictions, and
88 percent of expenditures reported in 1998 for
wiretaps terminated in prior years. Table 9 reflects
the total number of arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar years
1988 through 1998.

Summary of Reports for
Years Ending December 31,
1988 Through 1998
Table 7 provides a historical summary of
information on intercepts reported from 1988 to
1998. The table specifies the number of intercept
applications requested, denied, authorized, and
installed; the number of extensions granted; the
average length of original orders and extensions;

12

13