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 ....................................................................................................... 8
Locations ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Offenses ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials .................................................................... 10
Nature of Intercepts ......................................................................................................................... 10
Costs of Intercepts ........................................................................................................................... 11
Arrests and Convictions ................................................................................................................... 11
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1990 Through 2000 ............................................ 13
Supplementary Reports ................................................................................................................... 13

Text Tables
Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .................................................................................. 14
Table 2
Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 2000 ........................................................ 15
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted ............................................ 18
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 ..................................................................................................................... 27
Table 7
Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519 ............................................................ 30
Table 8
Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts
Terminated in Calendar Years 1990 Through 2000 .......................................................................... 31
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1990 Through 2000 ................................................................................................ 36

3

Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges ............................................................................................................................. 38
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ............................................................................................. 80
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ........................................................................................................................... 102
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ........................................................................................... 196

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, 2000, and
December 31, 2000, and provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 1,190 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2000, a decrease
of 5 percent compared to the number terminated in 1999. In 2000, wiretaps installed were in operation on
average 15 percent fewer days per wiretap than in 1999, and the number of intercepts per order was 8 percent
lower, but the average number of incriminating communications intercepted per wiretap increased 3
percent.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that beginning with the 2000 Wiretap
Report, reporting should reflect the number of wiretap applications granted for which encryption was
encountered and whether such encryption prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text
of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. In 2000, encryption was reported to have been
encountered in 22 wiretaps; however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law
enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for
2000. 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 2000 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 2000 compared to 1999. The AO is grateful for the
cooperation and the prompt responses we received from many officials around the nation.

Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director

April 2001
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 each 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

reference numbers assigned by the AO; these
numbers do not correspond to the authorization
or application numbers used by the reporting
jurisdictions. The same reference number is used
for any supplemental information reported for a
communications intercept in future volumes of
the Wiretap Report.
Beginning with the 2000 Wiretap Report, the
assignment of reporting numbers to federal wiretaps has been modified so that a comparable
numbering system is used for both federal and
state wiretaps. Each year, some reports are submitted on wiretaps that were terminated in prior
years but, because they had been part of ongoing
investigations, were not reported along with other
wiretaps terminated the same year. In previous
Wiretap Reports, the numbering system for federal
wiretaps blended wiretaps for the current year
with newly reported wiretaps that had been terminated in prior years, which made it difficult to
track data from year to year. For this year’s report,
comparisons with last year’s totals are based on
wiretaps that were terminated during that year.
That is, for 1999, comparisons are based not on

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 2000,
a total of 26 jurisdictions reported using at least
one of these three types of surveillance as an
investigative tool.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated during calendar year 2000 appear in Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The
reporting numbers used in the appendix tables are

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of authorizations
800

600

400

200

0
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Calendar Year
Federal

State

7

1997

1998

1999

2000

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Percent of Total Authorizations

State
62.8%

State
59.7%

Federal
37.2%

Federal
40.3%

1990

2000

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 2000, the average length of an original authorization was 28 days, up from 27 days in
1999. A total of 926 extensions were requested
and authorized in 2000 (a decrease of 32 percent).
The average length of an extension was 28 days,
down from 29 days in 1999. The longest federal
intercept occurred in the Central District of California, where the original 30-day order was extended 10 times to complete a 308-day wiretap
used in a narcotics investigation. Among state
wiretaps terminating during 2000, the longest
was used in a narcotics investigation in Queens
County, New York; this wiretap required a 30-day
order to be extended nine times to keep the
intercept in operation 300 days. In contrast, 19
federal intercepts and 48 state intercepts each
were in operation for less than a week.

the previously reported total of 1,350 wiretaps,
which includes 98 federal wiretaps that actually
were terminated in prior years, but on a total that
includes only the 1,252 wiretaps that were completed in 1999.
The number of wiretaps reported decreased
5 percent in 2000. A total of 1,190 applications
were authorized in 2000, including 479 submitted to federal judges and 711 to state judges.
Judges approved all applications. The number of
applications approved by both federal and state
judges in 2000 each decreased 5 percent compared to the number approved during 1999.1
Wiretap applications in New York (349 applications), California (88 applications), New Jersey
(45 applications), Pennsylvania (43 applications),
Florida (43 applications), and Illinois (41 applications) accounted for 86 percent of all authorizations approved by state judges.

Authorized Lengths of
Intercepts
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 actually were in operation, and the

Locations
Wire, oral, and electronic communications
technologies have changed dramatically over the
past 10 years. To reflect these changes, the location categories used in this year’s Wiretap Report
8

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 2000, authorizations for 27 wiretaps
indicated approval with a relaxed specification
order under 18 U.S.C. 2518(11). Federal authorities reported that roving wiretaps were approved
for seven investigations; three were authorized for
use in drug offense investigations, one in a murder
investigation, one in a gambling investigation, one
in a racketeering investigation, and one in a firearms investigation. On the state level, 20 roving
wiretaps were reported; 60 percent (12 applications) were authorized for use in drug offense
investigations, 10 percent (2 applications) in bribery investigations, and the remainder (six applications) in investigations of other offenses.

have been revised. As a result, location data in this
year’s report are not comparable to data for earlier
years.
The most common location specified in wiretap applications authorized in 2000 was “portable
device, carried by/on individual,” a category included for the first time this year in Table 2. This
category was added because wiretaps authorized
for devices such as portable digital pagers and
cellular telephones did not readily fit into the
location categories previously provided. Table 2
shows that in 2000, a total of 60 percent (715
wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized were for
portable devices such as these, which are not
limited to fixed locations.
The next most common location cited for the
placement of wiretaps in 2000 was a “personal
residence,” a type of location that includes singlefamily houses, as well as row houses, apartments,
and other multi-family dwellings. Table 2 shows
that in 2000 a total of 21 percent (251 wiretaps) of
all intercept devices were authorized for personal
residences. Four percent (53 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as offices, restaurants, and hotels. Combinations of
locations were cited in 109 federal and state
applications (9 percent of the total) in 2000.
Finally, 3 percent (35 wiretaps) were authorized
for “other” locations, which included such places
as prisons, pay telephones in public areas, and
motor vehicles.
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
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

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 75 percent of all applications for intercepts (894 wiretaps) authorized in
2000 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 Southern District of Texas (27
applications) and the Northern District of Illinois
(26 applications). On the state level, the New York
City Special Narcotics Bureau obtained authorizations for 108 drug-related intercepts, which accounted for the highest percentage (21 percent) of
all drug-related intercepts reported by state or
local jurisdictions in 2000. Nationwide, racketeering (76 orders), homicide/assault (72 orders), and gambling (49 orders) were specified in
6 percent, 6 percent, and 4 percent of authorizations, respectively, as the most serious offense
under investigation.
9

Drugs as the Major Offense
1,000

955

978
894

879

870
821

800

732
679
634

600

400

520

536

352

320

374
285

296

278

1992

1993

1994

326

328

316

1995

1996

1997

372
296

200

0
1990

1991

1998

1999

2000

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Prosecuting
Officials

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.
In 2000, installed wiretaps were in operation
an average of 42 days, a 15 percent decrease from
the average number of days wiretaps were in
operation in 1999. The average number of interceptions per day reported by all jurisdictions in
2000 ranged from less than 1 to over 700. The
most active federal intercept occurred in the Northern District of Ohio, where a 60-day fraud investigation installation involved 180 agent workdays
and resulted in an average of 346 interceptions per
day. For state authorizations, the most active investigation was a 35-day bribery investigation in
New York County, New York, that produced an
average of 713 intercepts per day. Nationwide, in
2000 the average number of persons whose communications were intercepted per order in which
intercepts were installed was 196, essentially the
same as the average number in 1999 (which was
195 persons). The average number of communica-

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 2000. Judges submitted 23 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.

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,190 communication interceptions
authorized in 2000, intercept devices were installed in conjunction with a total of 1,139 orders.
10

tions intercepted was 1,769 per wiretap; an average of 402 intercepts per installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence. The average
percentage of incriminating intercepts per order
increased from 20 percent of interceptions in
1999 to 23 percent in 2000.
The three major categories of surveillance
are wire communications, oral communications,
and electronic communications. In the early years
of wiretap reporting, nearly all intercepts involved telephone (wire) surveillance, primarily
communications made via conventional telephone
lines; the remainder involved microphone (oral)
surveillance or a combination of wire and oral
interception. With the passage of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986, a third
category was added for the reporting of electronic
communications, which most commonly involve
digital-display paging devices or fax machines,
but also may include some computer transmissions. The 1988 Wiretap Report was the first annual report to include electronic communications
as a category of surveillance.
In recent years, many wiretaps involving the
interception of communications via cellular telephones were reported under the category of “electronic” wiretaps. However, cellular telephones
that carry voice conversations are considered “wire
communications” under 18 U.S.C. 2510 (1), which
states that “‘wire communication’ means any aural
transfer made in whole or in part through the use
of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like
connection between the point of origin and the
point of reception (including the use of such
connection in a switching station).” Beginning
with the 2000 Wiretap Report, all wiretaps involving the interception of cellular telephones are
categorized as “wire” interceptions.
Table 6 presents the type of surveillance
method used for each intercept installed. The
most common method of surveillance reported
was “phone wire communication,” which includes
all telephones (landline, cellular, cordless, and
mobile). Telephone wiretaps accounted for 81
percent (927 cases) of intercepts installed in 2000.
Of those, 691 wiretaps involved cellular/mobile
telephones, either as the only type of device under
surveillance (578 cases) or in combination with
one or more other types (113 cases).

The next most common method of surveillance reported was the electronic wiretap, which
includes devices such as digital display pagers,
voice pagers, fax machines, and transmissions via
computer such as electronic mail. Electronic wiretaps accounted for 8 percent (89 cases) of intercepts installed in 2000. Microphones were used in
5 percent of intercepts (52 cases). A combination
of surveillance methods was used in 6 percent of
intercepts (71 cases).
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C.
2519(2)(b) to require that beginning with the
2000 Wiretap Report, reporting should reflect
the number of wiretap applications granted in
which encryption was encountered and whether
such encryption prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. In
2000, no federal wiretaps reported that encryption was encountered. For state and local jurisdictions, encryption was reported to have been
encountered in 22 wiretaps in 2000; however, in
none of these cases was encryption reported to
have prevented law enforcement officials from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses
related to intercept orders in 2000. The expenditures noted reflect the cost of installing intercept
devices and monitoring communications for the
1,080 authorizations for which reports included
cost data. The average cost of intercept devices
installed in 2000 was $54,829, down 5 percent
from the average cost in 1999. For federal wiretaps
for which expenses were reported in 2000, the
average cost was $63,767, a 13 percent decrease
from the average cost in 1999. However, the
average cost of a state wiretap increased 11 percent to $47,993 in 2000. For additional information, see Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1
(state).

Arrests and Convictions
Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The Central District of
California reported a federal wiretap that involved
cellular telephone and digital pager surveillance
11

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)
70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Calendar Year

that “without the wiretap, the head of this distribution organization and his chief co-conspirators
would not have been convicted. Conventional
investigative techniques would have only resulted
in the conviction of the organization’s ‘mules.’”
The State Attorney’s office in New Haven County,
Connecticut, reported that a wiretap in use for 15
days in a narcotics investigation resulted in six
arrests and one subsequent conviction, stating
that the interceptions “were successful in identifying upper-level suppliers and buyers of narcotics,
leading to the seizure of narcotics, weapons, and
assets with accompanying arrests that most likely
would have been unobtainable through the use of
normal investigative procedures.” The office of the
Attorney General in Oklahoma indicated that a
34-day wiretap investigating the manufacture of
methamphetamine resulted in 27 arrests and the
subsequent conviction of 14 individuals; the Attorney General noted that “none of these convictions could have been achieved without evidence
obtained from wire interception.”
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons
arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions
reported as terminated in 2000. As of December
31, 2000, a total of 3,411 persons had been

in a narcotics conspiracy investigation that led 15
persons to plead guilty; in addition, the reporting
officials noted that this wiretap “resulted in the
seizure of 40 tons of marijuana, 8 kilos of cocaine,
16 pounds of methamphetamine, 22 firearms, 5
vehicles, and $72,209.” Reporting officials in the
Northern District of Illinois described a federal
wiretap in use for 19 days in a narcotics investigation that resulted in 12 arrests and the seizure of
50 kilos of cocaine, $1.5 million in cash, and 10
vehicles. On the state level, the prosecuting attorney in Latah County, Idaho, reported that, as part
of a murder investigation, the information obtained in a wiretap of a standard telephone in a jail
“was instrumental in the State obtaining convictions for two counts of first degree murder, first
degree arson, conspiracy to commit murder and
arson, and preparing false evidence. Among other
things, the intercepted communications revealed
attempts by the defendant to create fictitious
alibis, giving us the opportunity to thoroughly
investigate and rebut the same at trial.” The San
Bernardino District Attorney’s office in California
reported that a 58-day wiretap approved as part of
a narcotics investigation resulted in the arrest of
11 persons, 5 of whom were convicted, adding

12

number of intercept applications authorized increased 36 percent. The majority of wiretaps
involved drug-related investigations, ranging from
60 percent of all applications authorized in 1990
to 75 percent in 2000.

arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or
electronic communications, 22 percent (736 persons) of whom were convicted (an increase from
the 1999 conviction rate of 15 percent, returning
to a percentage rate closer to the 1998 conviction
rate of 26 percent). Federal wiretaps were responsible for 52 percent of the arrests and 48 percent
of the convictions during 2000. A wiretap in the
District of Hawaii resulted in the most arrests of
any intercept in 2000. This wiretap, which was the
lead wiretap of three used in a narcotics investigation, led to the arrest of 50 persons. A wiretap in
the Eastern District of Louisiana produced the
most convictions of any wiretap when an intercept
used in a drug investigation resulted in the conviction of 33 of the 34 persons arrested. The leader
among state intercepts in producing arrests and
convictions was a wiretap that took place in
Maricopa County, Arizona, and was the lead wiretap of two used in a drug investigation. This
wiretap resulted in 47 arrests and 21 convictions.
Because criminal cases involving the use of surveillance may still be under active investigation,
the results of many of the intercepts concluded in
2000 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 and 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 2000, a total of 2,264 arrests, 2,181
convictions, and additional costs of $8,734,348
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 2000 involved wiretaps terminated in
1999. Intercepts concluded in 1999 led to 71
percent of arrests, 61 percent of convictions, and
82 percent of expenditures reported in 2000 for
wiretaps terminated in prior years. Table 9 reflects
the total number of arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar years
1990 through 2000.

Summary of Reports for
Years Ending December 31,
1990 Through 2000

Endnote

Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1990 to 2000. 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; the locations of
intercepts; the major offenses investigated; average costs; and the average number of persons
intercepted, communications intercepted, and
incriminating intercepts. From 1990 to 2000, the

1

In the 1999 Wiretap Report, 601 federal wiretaps
and 749 state wiretaps were reported for 1999. However, of the 601 federal wiretaps, 503 had been terminated in 1999, whereas 98 had been concluded in prior
years but not reported until 1999 because they had
been part of ongoing investigations. For consistency
with the new method of counting wiretaps in the 2000
Wiretap Report, percentage changes between 1999 and
2000 have been calculated based solely on wiretaps that
ended in each of those years.

13