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, 1993 Through 2003 .................................................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 2003 .............................................................15
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted .................................................19
Table 4
Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .............................................22
Table 5
Average Cost per Order ........................................................................................................................25
Table 6
Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions
for Intercepts Installed .......................................................................................................................... 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 1994 Through 2002 ...............................................................................33
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1993 Through 2003 .....................................................................................................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 ..................................................................................................90
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ................................................................................................................................112
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ................................................................................................208

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, 2003, and December 31, 2003, and
provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior
years.
A total of 1,442 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2003, an increase of 6
percent compared to the number terminated in 2002. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities rose 16 percent to 578. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials remained stable
(up 0.3 percent), with 23 state jurisdictions providing reports, 4 more than in 2002. Wiretaps installed were in
operation an average of 44 days per wiretap in 2003 compared to 39 days in 2002. The average number of
persons whose communications were intercepted increased from 92 per wiretap order in 2002 to 116 per order
in 2003. The average percentage of intercepted communications that were incriminating rose from 24 percent in
2002 to 33 percent in 2003.
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.
In 2003, no instances were reported of encryption’s being encountered on federal wiretaps. One state jurisdiction reported that encryption was encountered in a wiretap terminated in 2003; however, the encryption was
reported to have not 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 2003.
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 2003 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 lower in 2003 compared to 2002. 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 2004
5

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

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 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

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 large-scale
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

6

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 2003, a total of 24
jurisdictions reported using at least one of these three
types of surveillance as an investigative tool.

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 decreasing 9 percent in 2002, the number
of wiretaps reported increased 6 percent in 2003. A
total of 1,442 applications were authorized in 2003,
including 578 submitted to federal judges and 864 to
state judges. Judges approved all applications.
Compared to the number approved during 2002, the
number of applications approved by federal judges in
2003 increased 16 percent, and the number of
applications approved by state judges remained
stable (up 0.3 percent). Wiretap applications in New
York (328 applications), California (188 applications), New Jersey (117 applications), Pennsylvania
(52 applications), Florida (45 applications),
Maryland (25 applications), and Illinois (23 applications) accounted for 90 percent of all applications
approved by state judges. The number of states
reporting wiretap activity was higher than the number for last year (23 states in 2003 compared to 19 in

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2003 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

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Calendar Year
Federal

State

7

2000

2001

2002

2003

authorized were for portable devices such as these,
which are not limited to fixed locations. This is an
increase of 4 points over the percentage in 2002,
when 77 percent of all intercepts involved portable
devices.
The next most common specific location for the
placement of wiretaps in 2003 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 2003 a total of 8 percent (118 wiretaps) of all
intercept devices were authorized for personal
residences. Two percent (35 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as offices,
restaurants, and hotels. Combinations of locations
were cited in 95 federal and state applications (7
percent of the total) in 2003. Finally, 2 percent (23
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, was amended
in 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 2003, authorizations for six wiretaps
indicated approval with a relaxed specification order,
meaning they were considered roving wiretaps. This
is a decrease from 2002, when nine wiretaps were
reported as roving wiretaps. Federal authorities
reported that a roving wiretap was approved for one

2002), and reports were received from 102 separate
state jurisdictions in 2003, 22 more than the number
of state jurisdictions that reported wiretaps in 2002.

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 2003, the average length of an
original authorization was 29 days, the same as in
2002. A total of 1,145 extensions were requested and
authorized in 2003, an increase of 29 percent. The
average length of an extension was 29 days, the same
as in 2002. The longest federal intercept occurred in
the Northern District of New York, where an original
30-day order was extended 11 times to complete a
341-day wiretap used in a fraud investigation.
Among state wiretaps terminating during 2003, 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 initially
authorized in 1998 to be extended 67 times to keep
the intercept in operation 1,793 days. In contrast, 16
federal intercepts and 49 state intercepts each were in
operation for less than a week.

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap
applications authorized in 2003 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 2003,
a total of 81 percent (1,165 wiretaps) of all intercepts

8

narcotics investigation. On the state level, five roving
wiretaps were reported; three were authorized for use
in racketeering investigations, one for use in a
narcotics investigation, and one for use in a murder
investigation.

prosecutors’ reports submitted for 2003. Judges
submitted 45 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.

Offenses
Violations of drug laws and racketeering laws
were the two most prevalent types of offenses investigated through communications intercepts. Homicide/
assault was the third most frequently recorded
offense category cited on wiretap orders, and larceny/
theft/robbery was the fourth most frequently cited
offense category reported. Table 3 indicates that 77
percent of all applications for intercepts (1,104
wiretaps) authorized in 2003 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 Northern District of Illinois (48 applications), the
Southern District of New York (43 applications), and
the Central District of California (36 applications).
On the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau obtained authorization for 112 drugrelated intercepts, which accounted for the largest
percentage (19 percent) of all drug-related intercepts
reported by state or local jurisdictions in 2003.
Nationwide, racketeering (96 orders) and homicide/
assault (80 orders) were specified in 7 percent and 6
percent of applications, respectively, as the most
serious offense under investigation. The categories of
larceny/theft/robbery (50 orders) and gambling (49
orders) each were specified in 3 percent of applications.

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,442 communication interceptions
authorized in 2003, reports submitted by prosecutors
indicated that intercept devices were installed and
results were reported in conjunction with a total of
1,367 orders. As shown in Table 2, orders for 30
wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps were
installed, while results from 45 wiretap orders were
not available for reporting by the prosecutors. 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 2003, installed wiretaps were in operation an
average of 44 days, a 13 percent increase from the
average number of days wiretaps were in operation in
2002. The most active federal wiretap occurred in the
District of Minnesota, where a racketeering investigation involving the interception of computer messages
on a digital subscriber line (DSL) resulted in the
interception of a total of 141,420 messages over 21
days. The next most active federal intercept occurred
in the District of Arizona, where a 9-day narcotics
investigation involving cellular telephone intercepts
resulted in an average of 1,169 interceptions per day.
For state authorizations, the most active wiretap was
used in a 24-day narcotics investigation in Gloucester
County, New Jersey, that produced an average of 526
intercepts per day. Nationwide, in 2003 the average
number of persons whose communications were
intercepted per order in which intercepts were
installed was 116, and the average number of communications intercepted was 3,004 per wiretap. An
average of 993 intercepts per installed wiretap
produced incriminating evidence, and the average

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

9

Drugs as the Major Offense

1,200

1,167
1,052

1,000

955
876

1,104

978
894

870
821

800

732

679

600

400
297

326

328

316

1995

1996

1997

372

374

296

278

324

306

338

2001

2002

2003

200

0
1993

1994

1998

1999

2000

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

percentage of incriminating intercepts per order rose
from 24 percent of interceptions in 2002 to 33
percent in 2003.
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.
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 93 percent (1,271cases) of

intercepts installed in 2003. Of those, 1,154 wiretaps
involved cellular/mobile telephones, either as the
only type of device under surveillance (1,085 cases)
or in combination with other types of telephones (69
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
4 percent (49 cases) of intercepts installed in 2003;
32 of these involved electronic pagers, 12 involved
computers, and 5 involved other electronic devices
such as fax machines. Microphones were used in 2
percent of intercepts (24 cases). A combination of
surveillance methods was used in 2 percent of
intercepts (23 cases); of these combination intercepts,
83 percent (19 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 inter10

Arrests and Convictions

cepted pursuant to the court orders. In 2003, no
instances were reported of encryption being encountered on federal wiretaps. One state jurisdiction
reported that encryption was encountered in a
wiretap terminated in 2003; however, the encryption
was reported to have not prevented law enforcement
officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.

Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The Northern District of
Georgia reported a federal wiretap involving cellular
telephone surveillance in a narcotics conspiracy
investigation that led to 29 arrests; in addition, the
reporting officials stated that this wiretap “resulted in
the seizure of 30 kilos of cocaine, 10,000 pounds of
marijuana, 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 5 vehicles, 5 weapons, and $3,500,000 in cash.” Reporting officials in the District of Puerto Rico described a
federal wiretap in use for 50 days in a narcotics
investigation that resulted in 4 arrests, along with the
seizure of 1,140 kilos of cocaine and 3 kilos of
heroin. Incriminating communications obtained in a
wiretap in the Central District of California produced
12 arrests and the seizure of 16 tons of pseudoephedrine, 10 vehicles, 1 weapon, and $3,000,000 in
cash. Surveillance of cellular telephone communications reported in the Northern District of Ohio
contributed to 20 arrests and the seizure of 89 kilos
of cocaine, 5 kilos of crack cocaine, 4 vehicles, 19
weapons, and over $235,000 in cash.

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses related
to intercept orders in 2003. The expenditures noted
reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and
monitoring communications for the 1,236 authorizations for which reports included cost data. The
average cost of intercept devices installed in 2003
was $62,164, up 14 percent from the average cost in
2002. For federal wiretaps for which expenses were
reported in 2003, the average cost was $71,625, a 5
percent decrease from the average cost in 2002. After
two years of lower-than-average costs, the average
cost of a state wiretap rose 35 percent to $54,223 in
2003. For additional information, see Appendix
Tables A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state).

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Calendar Year

11

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

On the state level, reporting officials in Canyon
County, Idaho, stated that a telephone wiretap in use
for 18 days “allowed authorities to develop leads into
a child kidnapping and homicide case that had been
inactive for five years.” The district attorney in
Rockland County, New York, noted that interceptions in a wiretap involving cellular telephone
surveillance conducted over 61 days in a narcotics
investigation “were indispensable in investigating,
dismantling, and prosecuting several closely knit
groups of individuals who were selling marijuana,
cocaine, and ketamine ... (and) enabled the Rockland
County Narcotics County Task Force to end the
illegal activity of 43 individuals who conducted their
illicit trading by portable devices.” In California, the
Los Angeles district attorney’s office reported that a
wiretap in use for 28 days led to three arrests on
charges of transportation of narcotics; the report
stated that the interceptions led to the seizure of
$1,300,000 in cash, 87 kilos of cocaine, and 13
pounds of methamphetamine. In Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, officials reported that surveillance of a standard telephone for 58 days in a murder
investigation enabled investigators to establish the
existence of a conspiracy to commit a contract killing
and identified the suspects charged with the offense.
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons
arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions
reported as terminated in 2003. As of December 31,
2003, a total of 3,674 persons had been arrested
based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic
communications. Wiretaps terminated in 2003
resulted in the conviction of 843 persons as of
December 31, 2003, which was 23 percent of the
number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps were
responsible for 51 percent of the arrests and 33
percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps
during 2003. A state wiretap in Hudson County,
New Jersey, resulted in the most arrests of any
intercept terminated in 2003. This wiretap was the
lead wiretap of seven intercepts authorized for use in
narcotics investigations that led to the arrest of 58
persons. The Southern District of New York reported
the most arrests of any federal wiretap; an intercept
used in a narcotics investigation there yielded the
arrests of 46 persons. The leader among state intercepts in producing convictions was a wiretap in
Rockland County, New York, which was used in a
narcotics investigation that resulted in 43 arrests and
43 convictions. The largest number of convictions

reported from a federal wiretap terminated in 2003
occurred in the Southern District of Florida, where a
wiretap that was the lead wiretap of two intercepts
authorized for use in a narcotics conspiracy investigation led to the conviction of 25 of the 30 persons
arrested.
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 2003 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, 1993
Through 2003
Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1993 to 2003. The 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
1993 to 2003, the number of intercept applications
authorized increased 48 percent. The majority of
wiretaps involved drug-related investigations, which
ranged from 70 percent of all applications authorized
in 1993 to 77 percent in 2003.

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
12

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 2003, a total of 1,617 arrests, 2,066
convictions, and additional costs of $8,417,445 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 2003 involved wiretaps terminated in 2002. Of all supplemental arrests, convictions, and costs reported in 2003, intercepts
concluded in 2002 led to 66 percent of arrests, 52
percent of convictions, and 83 percent of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the total number of arrests and
convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in
calendar years 1993 through 2003.

13