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 ...................................................................... 9
Nature of Intercepts ........................................................................................................................... 9
Costs of Intercepts ........................................................................................................................... 11
Arrests and Convictions ................................................................................................................... 11
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1992 Through 2002 ............................................ 12
Supplementary Reports ................................................................................................................... 12

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 2002 ..................................................... 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 1992 Through 2002 .......................................................................... 31
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1992 Through 2002 ................................................................................................ 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 ............................................................................................. 82
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ........................................................................................................................... 110
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ........................................................................................... 202

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, 2002, and
December 31, 2002, and provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 1,358 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2002, a drop of
9 percent compared to the number terminated in 2001. The number of applications for orders by federal
authorities rose 2 percent to 497. Following an increase of 41 percent in 2001, the number of applications
reported by state prosecuting officials dropped 14 percent in 2002. The average number of persons whose
communications were intercepted increased 7 percent. The number of communications intercepted per
order was 9 percent higher, and the number of incriminating communications reported per wiretap was 21
percent higher.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that 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. Encryption was reported to have been encountered in 16 wiretaps terminated in 2002
and in 18 wiretaps terminated in calendar year 2001 or earlier but reported for the first time in 2002;
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
2002. 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 2002 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) provides that prosecutors must submit 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, and the filing of some reports may be delayed to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations. The
number of missing state and local prosecutors’ reports was higher in 2002 compared to 2001. Information
received after the deadline will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report. The AO is grateful for the
cooperation and the prompt response we received from many officials around the nation.

Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director
April 2003
5

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

Reporting Requirements of
the Statute

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(FISA).
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, or the use of
a body microphone. Also, no report to the AO is
required for the use of a pen register (a device
attached to a telephone line that records or decodes impulses identifying the numbers dialed
from that line) unless the pen register is used in
conjunction with any wiretap devices whose use
must be reported. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3126, the
U.S. Department of Justice collects and reports
data on pen registers and trap and trace devices.

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. This
report does not include interceptions regulated by

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.”
6

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
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 47 jurisdictions (the
federal government, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and 44 states) currently have laws
that authorize courts to issue orders permitting
wire, oral, or electronic surveillance. During 2002,
a total of 20 jurisdictions reported using at least
one of these three types of surveillance as an
investigative tool.

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
same reporting number is used for any supplemental information reported for a communications intercept in future volumes of the Wiretap
Report.
After increasing 25 percent in 2001, the
number of wiretaps reported decreased 9 percent
in 2002. A total of 1,358 applications were authorized in 2002, including 497 submitted to federal
judges and 861 to state judges. One application
was denied. Compared to the number approved
during 2001, the number of applications approved by federal judges in 2002 increased 2
percent, and the number of applications approved
by state judges dropped 14 percent. Wiretap applications in New York (404 applications), California (143 applications), New Jersey (81
applications), Pennsylvania (79 applications),
Maryland (54 applications), Florida (37 applications), and Illinois (25 applications) accounted for
96 percent of all authorizations approved by state
judges. The number of states reporting wiretap
activity was lower than the number for last year
(19 states in 2002 compared to 24 in 2001), and
reports were received from 80 separate state

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2002 appear in Appendix
Tables A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations
1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Calendar Year
Federal

State

7

1999

2000

2001

2002

jurisdictions in 2002, 20 fewer than the number of
state jurisdictions that reported wiretaps in 2001.

which are not limited to fixed locations. This is an
increase of 9 points over the percentage in 2001,
when 68 percent of all intercepts involved portable devices.
The next most common specific location for
the placement of wiretaps in 2002 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 2002 a total of 11 percent (154 wiretaps) of
all intercept devices were authorized for personal
residences. Three percent (37 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as offices, restaurants, and hotels. Combinations of
locations were cited in 85 federal and state applications (6 percent of the total) in 2002. Finally, 2
percent (27 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 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 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 2002, authorizations for nine wiretaps
indicated approval with a relaxed specification
order, meaning they were considered roving wiretaps. Federal authorities reported that roving
wiretaps were approved for three investigations,
with two authorized for use in racketeering investigations, and one for use in a drug offense

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 lengths of the original authorizations and
their extensions, the total number of days the
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 2002, the average length of an original authorization was 29 days, up from 27 days in
2001. A total of 889 extensions were requested
and authorized in 2002 (a decrease of 12 percent).
The average length of an extension was 29 days,
the same as in 2001. The longest federal intercept
occurred in the District of Nevada, where an
original 30-day order was extended 11 times to
complete a 360-day wiretap used in a racketeering
investigation. Among state wiretaps terminating
during 2002, the longest was used in a narcotics
investigation conducted by the New York State
Organized Crime Task Force; this wiretap required a 30-day order to be extended 28 times to
keep the intercept in operation 830 days. In
contrast, 18 federal intercepts and 53 state intercepts each were in operation for less than a week.

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap applications authorized in 2002 was “portable
device, carried by/on individual,” a category included for the first time in the 2000 Wiretap
Report. 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 provided prior to
2000. Table 2 shows that in 2002, a total of 77
percent (1,046 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized were for portable devices such as these,
8

investigation. On the state level, six roving wiretaps were reported; five applications were authorized for use in drug offense investigations, and
one for use in a robbery investigation.

“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.

Offenses
Violations of drug laws and gambling laws
were the two most prevalent types of offenses
investigated through communications intercepts.
Racketeering was the third most frequently noted
offense category cited on wiretap orders, and
homicide/assault was the fourth most frequently
cited offense category reported. Table 3 indicates
that 77 percent of all applications for intercepts
(1,052 wiretaps) authorized in 2002 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 New York (45 applications), the Northern District of Illinois (35 applications), and the
Central District of California (30 applications).
On the state level, the New York City Special
Narcotics Bureau obtained authorizations for 163
drug-related intercepts, which accounted for the
largest percentage (25 percent) of all drug-related
intercepts reported by state or local jurisdictions
in 2002. Nationwide, gambling (82 orders), racketeering (72 orders), and homicide/assault (58
orders) were specified in 6 percent, 5 percent, and
4 percent of authorizations, respectively, as the
most serious offense under investigation.

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,358 communication interceptions
authorized in 2002, intercept devices were installed in conjunction with a total of 1,273 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.
In 2002, installed wiretaps were in operation
an average of 39 days, a 3 percent increase from
the average number of days wiretaps were in
operation in 2001. The average number of intercepts per day reported by jurisdictions in 2002
ranged from less than 1 to over 650. The most
active federal intercept occurred in the Central
District of California, where a 30-day narcotics
conspiracy investigation involved cellular telephone intercepts and resulted in an average of 677
interceptions per day. For state authorizations,
the most active investigation was a 60-day narcotics investigation in the Fourth Judicial Circuit
(Duval County), Florida, that produced an average of 342 intercepts per day. Nationwide, in
2002 the average number of persons whose communications were intercepted per order in which
intercepts were installed was 92, and the average
number of communications intercepted was 1,708
per wiretap. An average of 403 intercepts per
installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence,
and the average percentage of incriminating intercepts per order rose from 21 percent of interceptions in 2001 to 24 percent in 2002.
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)

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 2002.
Judges submitted 58 reports for which the AO
received no corresponding reports from prosecuting officials. For these authorizations, the entry
9

Drugs as the Major Offense

1,200

1,167
1,052

1,000

955

978
894

876

870
821

800

732
634

679

600

374

400
285

296

326

328

316

1995

1996

1997

372
296

278

324

306

2001

2002

200

0
1992

1993

1994

1998

1999

2000

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

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.
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 88
percent (1,124 cases) of intercepts installed in
2002. Of those, 971 wiretaps involved cellular/
mobile telephones, either as the only type of
device under surveillance (922 cases) or in combination with standard telephones (49 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 5 percent (59 cases) of inter-

cepts installed in 2002; 86 percent of these (51
cases) involved electronic pagers. Microphones
were used in 3 percent of intercepts (35 cases). A
combination of surveillance methods was used in
4 percent of intercepts (55 cases); of these combination intercepts, 71 percent (39 cases) included a
mobile/cellular telephone as one of the devices
monitored.
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C.
2519(2)(b) in 2001 to require that 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
2002, no federal wiretap reports indicated that
encryption was encountered. State and local jurisdictions reported that encryption was encountered in 16 wiretaps terminated in 2002; however,
in none of these cases was encryption reported to
have prevented law enforcement officials from
obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted. In addition, state and local jurisdictions
reported that encryption was encountered in 18
wiretaps that were terminated in calendar year
2001 or earlier, but were reported for the first time
in 2002; in none of these cases did encryption
10

prevent access to the plain text of communications
intercepted.

71.5 pounds of methamphetamine, 230 gallons of
methamphetamine solution, 110 gallons of
pseudo-ephedrine; 2 million pseudo-ephedrine
tablets, 4 vehicles, 4 weapons, and $74,000 in
cash.” Reporting officials in the Northern District
of New York described a federal wiretap in use for
33 days in a narcotics investigation that resulted in
11 arrests, along with the seizure of 11 vehicles, 11
weapons, and $1.3 million in cash. Incriminating
communications obtained in a wiretap in the
Western District of Texas produced the seizure of
more than nine tons of marijuana plus four vehicles. Surveillance of fax communications at a
financial institution reported in the District of
New Jersey contributed to one arrest and the
seizure of $20.8 million from 39 accounts. In the
Eastern District of New York, reporting officials
noted that intercepts from a racketeering investigation “were essential to obtaining convictions
and saving the victim from a beating.”
On the state level, the assistant district attorney in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, reported that the information obtained in a wiretap
with microphone surveillance in operation for 56
days “provided the crucial evidence to establish
probable cause to search 28 locations, where we
found narcotics and proceeds of trafficking; the
conversations established the nature, extent and

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses
related to intercept orders in 2002. The expenditures noted reflect the cost of installing intercept
devices and monitoring communications for the
1,193 authorizations for which reports included
cost data. The average cost of intercept devices
installed in 2002 was $54,586, up 13 percent
from the average cost in 2001. For federal wiretaps
for which expenses were reported in 2002, the
average cost was $75,659, a 2 percent increase
above the average cost in 2001. The average cost
of a state wiretap rose 19 percent to $40,101 in
2002. 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 Central District of
California reported a federal wiretap involving
cellular telephone surveillance in a narcotics conspiracy investigation that led to 15 arrests and 1
conviction; in addition, the reporting officials
noted that this wiretap “resulted in the seizure of

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)
70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Calendar Year

11

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

identity of the conspiracy.” The district attorney in
Rockland County, New York, noted that interceptions in a wiretap involving cellular telephone and
electronic pager surveillance conducted over 120
days in a narcotics investigation “were vital in
obtaining the evidence needed to indict and convict the members of a narcotics organization [that]
would otherwise not have been able to be dismantled.” In Oklahoma, the district attorney in
Comanche County reported that a wiretap in use
for 41 days in an investigation of methamphetamine trafficking led to the conviction of seven of
nine persons arrested. The report stated that the
surveillance “yielded information about where
and when traffickers were meeting to exchange
cash, drugs, and information; provided details of
how the drug network operated and where; identified principals; and allowed surveillance of meetings and opportunities to arrest.” In San
Bernardino County, California, officials reported
that surveillance of a standard telephone for 12
days enabled investigators to gain the full scope
and involvement of all suspects on a nine year-old
murder investigation.
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons
arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions
reported as terminated in 2002. As of December
31, 2002, a total of 3,060 persons had been
arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or
electronic communications. Wiretaps terminated
in 2002 resulted in the conviction of 493 persons
as of December 31, 2002, which was 16 percent of
the number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps
were responsible for 50 percent of the arrests and
28 percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps during 2002. A state wiretap in Middlesex
County, New Jersey, resulted in the most arrests of
any intercept terminated in 2002. This wiretap
was the lead wiretap of eight intercepts authorized
for use in narcotics and gambling investigations
that led to the arrest of 136 persons. The Northern
District of Ohio produced the most arrests of any
federal wiretap when an intercept used in a narcotics investigation yielded the arrests of 50 persons.
The leader among state intercepts in producing
convictions was a wiretap that took place in
Rockland County, New York, which was used in
a narcotics investigation that led to the conviction
of 31 of the 47 persons arrested. The largest
number of convictions reported from a federal

wiretap terminated in 2002 occurred in the District of New Jersey, where a wiretap used in a
narcotics conspiracy investigation resulted in 15
arrests and 15 convictions.
Because criminal cases involving the use of
surveillance may still be under active investigation
or prosecution, the final results of many of the
wiretaps concluded in 2002 may not have been
reported. Prosecutors will report the additional
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.

Summary of Reports for
Years Ending December 31,
1992 Through 2002
Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1992 to 2002. This table
specifies the number of intercept applications
requested, 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 1992 to 2002, the
number of intercept applications authorized increased 48 percent. The majority of wiretaps
involved drug-related investigations, ranging from
69 percent of all applications authorized in 1992
to 77 percent in 2002.

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.
12

During 2002, a total of 2,458 arrests, 2,616
convictions, and additional costs of $12,262,988
arose and were reported from wiretaps completed
in previous years. Table 8 summarizes additional
prosecution activity by jurisdiction from supplemental reports on intercepts terminated in the
years noted. Nearly half of the supplemental reports of additional activity in 2002 involved wire-

taps terminated in 2001. Of all supplemental
arrests, convictions, and costs reported in 2002,
intercepts concluded in 2001 led to 54 percent of
arrests, 50 percent of convictions, and 75 percent
of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the total number
of arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar years 1992 through
2002.

13