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 ................................................................................................................... 10
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1989 Through 1999 ............................................ 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 1999 ........................................................ 14
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted ............................................ 17
Table 4
Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications......................................... 21
Table 5
Average Cost per Order.................................................................................................................... 24
Table 6
Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions
for Intercepts Installed ..................................................................................................................... 28
Table 7
Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519 ............................................................ 32
Table 8
Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts
Terminated in Calendar Years 1989 Through 1998 .......................................................................... 33
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1989 Through 1999 ................................................................................................ 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 ............................................................................................. 86
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ........................................................................................................................... 104
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, 1999, and
December 31, 1999, and provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts concluded in prior years.
From 1998 to 1999, the total number of intercepts authorized by federal and state courts increased 2
percent to 1,350, reflecting continued growth in applications involving the surveillance of drug offense
operations (up 2 percent). Following a decrease of one half of one percent in 1998, the number of
applications for orders by federal authorities rose 6 percent in 1999. The number of applications reported
by state prosecuting officials dropped 2 percent in 1999, with fewer jurisdictions providing reports than in
1998. The number of federal intercept applications authorized has grown over the last 10 years, increasing
94 percent from 1989 to 1999, while state applications have risen 65 percent since 1989. The number of
intercepts employed in drug-related investigations also has experienced significant growth. Drug offenders
were targeted in 978 of the interceptions concluded in 1999, compared to 471 in 1989, a 108% increase.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for
1999. 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
A-2 and B-2 contain information from the supplementary reports submitted by prosecuting officials about
additional arrests and trials in 1999 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) mandates the submission of wiretap reports 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 1999 compared to 1998. The AO is grateful for the
cooperation and the prompt responses we received from many officials around the nation.

Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director
April 2000
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

same reference number is used for any supplemental information reported for a communications intercept in future volumes of the Wiretap
Report.
A total of 1,350 applications (an increase of
2 percent over 1998) were authorized in 1999,
including 601 submitted to federal judges and 749
to state judges. Judges approved all applications.
The number of applications approved by federal
judges in 1999 increased 6 percent, while approvals by state judges fell 2 percent below the previous
year’s total. Wiretap applications in New York
(343 applications), California (76 applications),
New Jersey (71 applications), Pennsylvania (69
applications), and Illinois (50 applications) accounted for 81 percent of all authorizations approved by state judges.

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 1999,
a total of 28 jurisdictions reported using at least
one of these three types of surveillance as an
investigative tool.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges

Authorized Length of
Intercepts

Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 1999 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

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

600

400

200

0
1989
Federal
Federal
State

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994
Calendar Year

State

7

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Percent of Total Authorizations

State
55.5%

State
59.4%

Federal
44.5%

Federal
40.6%

1989

1999

1998

1999

Table 2 shows that in 1999 a total of 18 percent
(248 wiretaps) of all intercept devices were authorized for single-family dwellings; 7 percent (92
wiretaps) were authorized for apartments; and 4
percent (59 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as restaurants and hotels.
Forty-nine percent of intercept applications
(663 applications) specified “other” locations. Applications specifying other locations, which include electronic wiretaps such as mobile
telephones, electronic pagers, and cellular telephones, have continued to increase in recent years
with the proliferation of these types of communication devices. Combinations of locations were
cited in 269 federal and state applications (20
percent of the total) in 1999.
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

intercepts actually were in operation, and the
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 1999, the average length of an original authorization was 27 days, down from 28 days
in 1998. A total of 1,367 extensions were requested and authorized in 1999 (an increase of 17
percent). The average length of an extension was
29 days, up from 27 days in 1998. The longest
federal intercept occurred in the Western District
of Texas, where the original 30-day order was
extended nine times to complete a 289-day wiretap used in a narcotics investigation. Among state
wiretaps terminating during 1999, the longest
was used in a racketeering investigation in New
York County, New York; this wiretap required a
30-day order to be extended 16 times to keep the
intercept in operation 510 days. In contrast, 19
federal intercepts and 77 state intercepts each
were in operation for less than a week.

Locations
The most common specific location for the
placement of wiretaps in 1999 was a “singlefamily dwelling,” a type of location that includes
houses, rowhouses, townhouses, and duplexes.
8

and the remainder (14 applications) in investigations of other offenses. Roving wiretaps authorized in New York County, New York,
accounted for 50 percent of all roving wiretaps
reported in 1999; 47 applications in New York
County, New York, indicated that roving wiretaps were employed, with the majority (43
applications) used in racketeering investigations.

that actions by the person under investigation
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 1999 report, 94 wiretaps were implemented for which the authorizations indicated
roving wiretaps were involved, either as the only
location category reported (18 applications) or in
combination with one or more other locations (76
applications). This year’s total was more than
twice that for roving wiretaps reported for 1998,
which is consistent with the fact that 1999 was the
first full year of reporting since the enactment of
the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1999. Federal authorities reported that they employed roving wiretaps for eight investigations; six were
employed in drug offense investigations, one in a
murder investigation, and one in a firearms investigation. On the state level, 86 roving wiretaps
were reported; 52 percent (45 applications) were
used in racketeering investigations, 31 percent
(27 applications) in drug offense investigations,

Offenses
Violations of drug laws and racketeering
laws remain the two most prevalent types of
offenses investigated through communications
intercepts. Homicide/assault was the third most
frequently noted offense category cited on wiretap orders, and gambling offenses were the
fourth most frequently cited offense category
reported. Table 3 indicates that 72 percent of
all applications for intercepts (978 cases) authorized in 1999 cited drug offenses as the
most serious offense under investigation. Many
applications for court orders indicated that
several criminal offenses were 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

Drugs as the Major Offense
1200

1000
879

955

978

374

372

870
821
732

800
679
634
600
471
400

289

520

352

536

320

285

296

278

1992

1993

1994

326

328

316

1995

1996

1997

200

0
1989

1990

1991

Calendar Year

Drugs

Other Offenses

9

1998

1999

tion involved more than 1,790 agent workdays
and resulted in an average of 490 interceptions per
day. For state authorizations, the most active
investigation was a 14-day drug offense operation
in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, that produced
an average of 296 intercepts per day. Nationwide,
in 1999 the average number of persons whose
communications were intercepted per order in
which intercepts were installed was 195. The
average number of communications intercepted
was 1,921 per wiretap; an average of 390 intercepts per installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence. The average percentage of
incriminating intercepts per order increased from
19 percent of interceptions in 1998 to 20 percent
in 1999.
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 53 percent (676 cases) of intercepts installed in
1999. Telephone wiretaps, which were the most
common type of wiretap prior to 1998, constituted 31 percent (399 cases) of intercept devices
installed. Microphones were used in 5 percent of
intercepts (58 cases). A combination of devices
was used in 11 percent of intercepts (144 cases).

District of California (38 applications) and the
Southern District of Florida (34 applications). On
the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau obtained authorizations for 135 drugrelated intercepts, which accounted for the highest
percentage (28 percent) of all drug-related intercepts reported by state or local jurisdictions in
1999. Nationwide, racketeering (139 orders), homicide/assault (62 orders), and gambling (60 orders) were specified in 10 percent, 5 percent, and
4 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 1999.
Judges submitted 42 reports for which the AO
received no corresponding reports from prosecuting officials. For these authorizations, the entry
“NP” (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.

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses
related to intercept orders in 1999. The expenditures noted reflect the cost of installing intercept
devices and monitoring communications for the
1,232 authorizations for which reports included
cost data. The average cost of intercept devices
installed in 1999 was $57,511, essentially the
same as in 1998 (down 0.3 percent). For federal
wiretaps for which expenses were reported in
1999, the average cost was $73,616, a 0.3 percent
increase from the average cost in 1998. The average cost of a state wiretap fell 2 percent to $43,231
in 1999. For additional information, see Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1 (state).

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,350 communication interceptions
authorized in 1999, intercept devices were installed in conjunction with a total of 1,277 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.
The average number of interceptions per day
reported by all jurisdictions in 1999 ranged from
less than 1 to nearly 500. The most active federal
intercept occurred in the Southern District of New
York, where a 90-day fraud investigation installa-

Arrests and Convictions
Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The Southern District of
10

Average Cost of Wiretaps

Average Cost (in Thousands of Dollars)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Calendar Year

obtained through guilty pleas .” The State Attorney’s
office in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, reported
that a wiretap in use for 57 days in a narcotics
investigation resulted in 19 arrests and 10 subsequent convictions, and stated that without the
wiretap evidence, “three separate organizations
would still be actively dealing drugs.” In Middlesex
County, New Jersey, a 15-day telephone wiretap
used in a gambling investigation resulted in the
seizure of gambling records and approximately
$45,000, and led to the arrest of 7 persons.
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons
arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions
reported as terminated in 1999. As of December
31, 1999, a total of 4,372 persons had been
arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or
electronic communications, 15 percent (654 persons) of whom were convicted (a decrease from the
1998 conviction rate of 26 percent, returning to a
percentage rate closer to the 1997 conviction rate
of 18 percent). Federal wiretaps were responsible
for the most arrests (66 percent) and convictions
(55 percent) during 1999. A wiretap in the Western District of New York resulted in the most
arrests of any intercept in 1999. This wiretap,

Florida reported a federal telephone wiretap that
led to the arrest of 26 persons and 23 subsequent
convictions, and noted that this wiretap “was
crucial to identifying the scope and participants of
organizations, as well as the level of corruption.”
Reporting officials describing a federal wiretap in
the Middle District of Florida in use for 30 days in
a drug conspiracy investigation stated that this
intercept, which targeted a cocaine supply source,
provided significant incriminating evidence and
identified co-conspirators. In the District of New
Jersey, a telephone wiretap in use for 60 days in a
racketeering investigation led to the execution of
search warrants resulting in the seizure of stolen
property, expired food products, and other contraband. On the state level, the Berks County
District Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania reported
that a 44-day wiretap approved as part of a
corruption investigation resulted in the arrest of
16 persons, 12 of whom were convicted, and
noted that the interceptions were instrumental in
obtaining convictions and “clearly established the
organization, its structure, the players, and their
roles. In addition, the interceptions strengthened
the case so much that the twelve convictions were
11

of original orders and extensions; the locations of
intercepts; the major offenses investigated; average costs; and the average number of persons
intercepted, communications intercepted, and
incriminating intercepts. From 1989 to 1999, the
number of intercept applications authorized increased 77 percent. The majority of wiretaps
involved drug-related investigations, ranging from
62 percent of all applications authorized in 1989
to 72 percent in 1999.

which was the lead wiretap of three used in a
narcotics investigation, led to the arrest of 83
persons. A wiretap in the Southern District of
Florida produced the most convictions of any
wiretap when an intercept used in a drug investigation resulted in the conviction of 23 of the 26
persons arrested. Among state intercepts, the wiretap producing the most arrests took place in
Middlesex County, New Jersey, where an intercept conducted as part of a drug investigation
resulted in the arrests of 72 persons. Two
juristictions reported the largest number of convictions arising from state wiretaps (21 convictions each). In Suffolk County, New York, one
intercept used in a drug investigation led to the
conviction of 21 of the 33 persons arrested; in
Kings County, New York, an intercept used in an
investigation of assault, robbery, and conspiracy
resulted in the conviction of 21 of the 28 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 1999 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 1999, a total of 2,076 arrests, 1,996
convictions, and additional costs of $5,262,325
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 1999 involved wiretaps terminated in
1998. Intercepts concluded in 1998 led to 61
percent of arrests, 61 percent of convictions, and
74 percent of expenditures reported in 1999 for
wiretaps terminated in prior years. Table 9 reflects
the total number of arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar years
1989 through 1999.

Summary of Reports for
Years Ending December 31,
1989 Through 1999
Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1989 to 1999. The table
specifies the number of intercept applications
requested, denied, authorized, and installed; the
number of extensions granted; the average length

12