Contents
Report of the Director.................................................................................................................................... 5
Reporting Requirements of the Statute .......................................................................................................... 6
Regulations.................................................................................................................................................... 6
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges ................................................................................................. 7
Authorized Lengths of Intercepts ............................................................................................................ 7
Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Offenses .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials ............................................................................ 9
Nature of Intercepts ................................................................................................................................ 9
Costs of Intercepts ................................................................................................................................ 11
Arrests and Convictions ........................................................................................................................ 12
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1995 Through 2005 .................................................. 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 2005 ............................................................. 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 1996 Through 2004 ............................................................................... 31
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1995 Through 2005 ...................................................................................................... 35

3

Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges ................................................................................................................................... 36
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 ................................................................................................. 226

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, 2005, and December 31, 2005, and provides
supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 1,773 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2005, an increase of 4
percent compared to the number terminated in 2004. One application was denied. The number of applications
for orders by federal authorities fell 14 percent to 625. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting
officials grew 17 percent to 1,148, with three more state jurisdictions providing reports than in 2004. Wiretaps installed were in operation an average of 43 days per wiretap in 2005, the same as in 2004. The average number of
persons whose communications were intercepted dropped from 126 per wiretap order in 2004 to 107 per order
in 2005. The average percentage of intercepted communications that were incriminating was 22 percent in 2005,
compared to 21 percent in 2004.
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
2005, no instances were reported of encryption’s being encountered during a federal wiretap. State jurisdictions
reported 13 instances in which encryption was encountered in wiretaps terminated in 2005; however, in none of
these instances did the encryption prevent 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 2005.
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 2005 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), 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 percentage of missing state and
local prosecutors’ reports was 3 percent, the same as in 2004. 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 2006
5

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

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 parties
to the communication. Examples of such situations
include the use of a wire interception to investigate

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
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.
6

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 2005, a total of 23 jurisdictions reported using at least one of these three types of
surveillance as an investigative tool.

to federal judges and 1,148 to state judges. One application was denied. Compared to the number approved
during 2004, the number of applications reported as
approved by federal judges in 2005 fell 14 percent
(see sidebar on page 8). The number of applications
approved by state judges rose 17 percent. Wiretap applications in New York (391 applications), California
(235 applications), New Jersey (218 applications), and
Florida (72 applications) accounted for 80 percent of
all applications approved by state judges. The number
of states reporting wiretap activity was higher than the
number for last year (22 states reported such activity in 2005, compared to 19 in 2004). Ninety-seven
separate state jurisdictions submitted reports for 2005,
which is 12 more than the total for 2004.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2005 appear in Appendix Tables
A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting numbers
used in the appendix tables are reference numbers assigned by the AO; these numbers do not correspond to
the authorization or application numbers used by the
reporting jurisdictions. The same reporting number is
used for any supplemental information reported for
a communications intercept in future volumes of the
Wiretap Report.
The number of wiretaps reported increased 4
percent in 2005. A total of 1,773 applications were reported as authorized in 2005, including 625 submitted

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

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations
1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1995

1996

1997 1998

1999

2000

2001 2002

2003

Calendar Year
Federal
F

7

State e

2004

2005

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 2005, the average length of an original
authorization was 28 days, the same as in 2004. A total of 1,360 extensions were requested and authorized
in 2005, an increase of 1 percent. The average length
of an extension was 28 days, the same as in 2004.
The longest federal intercept occurred in the Southern
District of New York, where an original 30-day order
was extended nine times to complete a 287-day wiretap used in a racketeering investigation. Among state
wiretaps terminating during 2005, the longest was
used in a gambling investigation conducted in Queens
County, New York; this wiretap, in use for 559 days,
required a 30-day order to be extended 19 times. In
contrast, 18 federal intercepts and 53 state intercepts
each were in operation for less than a week.

Federal Wiretaps
The Department of Justice indicated that
it examined the decrease in the reported
use of wiretaps in federal investigations
reflected in this year’s report to Congress
as opposed to last year’s report and
provided the following comments:
“While it appears that the number of
federal wiretap-assisted investigations
conducted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)
declined last year, the numbers reported
in the Administrative Office’s report do
not reflect a number of investigations
not reported to the Department by the
reporting deadline, as well as a large
number of complex and/or sensitive
investigations that continued into 2006
and thus could not be reported at this
time. We believe that if these matters
could have been included in the report,
the report would reflect an increase
in the use of federal wiretap-assisted
investigations during Calendar Year
2005.”

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap
applications authorized in 2005 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 fit readily into the location categories provided prior to 2000. Since that time, the proportion of
wiretaps involving fixed locations has declined as the
use of mobile communications devices has become
more prevalent. Table 2 shows that in 2005, a total of
91 percent (1,610 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized involved portable devices such as these, which
are not limited to fixed locations. This is an increase
of 3 points over the percentage in 2004, when 88 percent of all intercepts involved portable devices.
The next most common specific location for
the placement of wiretaps in 2005 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
2005, a total of 3 percent (57 wiretaps) of all intercept
devices were authorized for personal residences. One
percent (21 wiretaps) were authorized for business

establishments such as offices, restaurants, and hotels.
Combinations of locations were cited in 49 federal
and state applications (3 percent of the total) in 2005.
Two percent (28 wiretaps) were authorized for “other”
locations, which included such places as prisons, pay
telephones in public areas, and motor vehicles.
Pursuant to 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) to provide
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

8

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 2005, authorizations for eight wiretaps
indicated approval with a relaxed specification order,
meaning they were considered roving wiretaps. This
is an increase from 2004, when one wiretap was
reported as a roving wiretap; however, the 2005 total
is similar to those reported for 2003 and 2002 (six
and nine, respectively). One roving wiretap approved
in 2005 was a federal wiretap used in a racketeering investigation. The other seven roving wiretaps
were reported by state authorities: four were used in
narcotics investigations, one in a murder investigation, one in a racketeering investigation, and one in a
money laundering investigation.

specified in 2 percent and 1 percent of applications,
respectively. Among the applications citing offenses
counted under the category “other” in Table 3, the
most frequently reported offenses were conspiracy (19
orders), fraud (17 orders), and corruption (11 orders).

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 2005. Judges submitted 57
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, and gambling the fourth. Table 3 indicates
that 81 percent of all applications for intercepts
(1,433 wiretaps) authorized in 2005 cited a drug
offense 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 (37
applications), the Northern District of Illinois (31 applications), and the Central District of California (24
applications). On the state level, the largest number
of drug-related intercepts was reported by the New
York City Special Narcotics Bureau (148 applications),
followed by Queens County of New York (100 applications) and Los Angeles County of California (85
applications). Nationwide, racketeering (94 orders)
and homicide/assault (82 orders) were each specified
in 5 percent of applications as the most serious offense under investigation. The categories of gambling
(42 orders) and larceny/theft/robbery (16 orders) were

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,773 communication interceptions
authorized in 2005, reports submitted by prosecutors indicated that intercept devices were installed
and results were reported in conjunction with a total
of 1,694 orders. As shown in Table 2, orders for 22
wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps actually were installed, and results from 57 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 2005, installed wiretaps were in operation
an average of 43 days, the same as the average number of days wiretaps were in operation in 2004. The
most active federal wiretap occurred in the Southern
District of New York, where a racketeering investigation involving the interception of cellular telephone

9

Drugs as the Major Offense
1,500

1,433
1,308
1,167

1,200

955

978

374

372

1,104
1,052

894

870

900

821
732

600

326 328 316

402
296

324

306

2000

2001

2002

338

340

300

0
1995 1996

1997 1998 1999

2003

2004 2005

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

communications resulted in the interception of 51,712
messages over 287 days. The second most active federal intercept, also a cellular telephone wiretap, occurred
in the Northern District of Texas as part of a racketeering investigation; this wiretap was active for 169 days
and resulted in a total of 42,628 interceptions. The
next most active federal wiretaps also involved cellular
telephone intercepts: one wiretap lasting 109 days that
was used in a prostitution investigation in the District
of New Jersey produced an average of 335 interceptions per day, and one wiretap used in a smuggling investigation in the Central District of California for 135
days led to an average of 232 interceptions per day.
For state authorizations, two jurisdictions reported
wiretaps that produced an average of more than 600
intercepts per day: a wiretap used in a 30-day murder
investigation in Los Angeles County, California, with
an average of 666 intercepts per day, and a wiretap
used in a 30-day narcotics investigation in San Diego
County, California, with an average of 605 intercepts
per day. Nationwide, in 2005 the average number of
persons whose communications were intercepted per
order in which intercepts were installed was 107, and
the average number of communications intercepted
was 2,835 per wiretap. An average of 629 intercepts

per installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence.
The average percentage of incriminating intercepts per
order was 22 percent in 2005, compared to 21 percent
in 2004.
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.
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 (land line,
cellular, cordless, and mobile). Telephone wiretaps
accounted for 95 percent (1,609 cases) of intercepts
installed in 2005. Of those, 1,537 wiretaps involved
cellular/mobile telephones, either as the only type of
10

device under surveillance (1,495 cases) or in combination with other types of telephones (42 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
1 percent (23 cases) of intercepts installed in 2005;
15 of these involved electronic pagers, and 8 involved
computers. Oral wiretaps including microphones were
used in 1 percent of intercepts (18 cases). A combination of surveillance methods was used in 3 percent of
intercepts (44 cases); of these combination intercepts,
93 percent (41 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 2005, no instances
were reported of encryption encountered during any

federal wiretap. State jurisdictions reported 13 instances of encryption encountered in wiretaps terminated in
2005; 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 jurisdictions reported that
encryption was encountered in 40 wiretaps that were
terminated in calendar year 2004 or earlier, but were
reported for the first time in 2005; in only one of these
instances did the encryption prevent 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 2005. The expenditures noted
reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and monitoring communications for the 1,525 authorizations
for which reports included cost data. The average cost
of intercept devices installed in 2005 was $55,530,
down 12 percent from the average cost in 2004. For
federal wiretaps for which expenses were reported in
2005, the average cost was $70,480, a 7 percent de-

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)
Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)

80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Calendar Year

11

crease from the average cost in 2004. The average cost
of a state wiretap fell 13 percent to $45,454 in 2005.
For additional information, see Appendix Tables A-1
(federal) & B-1 (state).

in the seizure of 10 vehicles, 10 weapons, 40 pounds
of marijuana, 592 kilos of cocaine, and $8,000,000 in
cash.” Reporting officials in the Northern District of
Illinois described a federal wiretap in use for 30 days
in a narcotics investigation that resulted in 7 arrests,
along with the seizure of 10 vehicles, 1 weapon, more
than $500,000 in cash, 100 pounds of marijuana, and
20,000 pills of MDMA (commonly known by the
street name "ecstasy"). Incriminating communications
obtained from a wiretap in the District of Arizona
produced 11 arrests and the seizure of 4 vehicles, 15
weapons, 1 ton of marijuana, 5 kilos of cocaine, and
more than $100,000 in cash. Surveillance of cellular
telephone communications reported by the Northern
District of New York contributed to 15 arrests and the
seizure of 13 vehicles, 80 kilos of marijuana, more
than 4 kilos of MDMA, and more than $1,000,000 in
cash.
On the state level, officials in the office of the
Wisconsin state attorney general reported that a
standard telephone wiretap was used in a murder
investigation, stating that “the case involves a 25+ year
old homicide; without an admission by the conspirators it is unlikely we would be able to file charges.”
Officials in Los Angeles County, California, noted that
a cellular telephone wiretap in use for 7 days resulted
in 500 incriminating communications, the arrest of 5
persons, and the seizure of 81 kilograms of cocaine
and approximately $600,000 in U.S. currency. The
district attorney in Davidson County, Tennessee,
reported that interceptions obtained from a cellular
telephone wiretap conducted over 201 days in a drug
conspiracy investigation “allowed investigators to
determine the identities of the out-of-state cocaine
suppliers and allowed investigators to track drug
loads being delivered in Nashville.” In another
investigation in Davidson County, Tennessee, the
reporting official stated that “the interceptions were
necessary to uncover a plot to have witnesses in a
pending case murdered.”
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 2005 may not have been reported.
Prosecutors will report 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.

Arrests and Convictions
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons arrested
and convicted as a result of interceptions reported as
terminated in 2005. As of December 31, 2005, a total
of 4,674 persons had been arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications,
4 percent more than in 2004. Wiretaps terminated
in 2005 resulted in the conviction of 776 persons
as of December 31, 2005, which was 17 percent of
the number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps
were responsible for 50 percent of the arrests and 31
percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps during 2005. A state wiretap in Somerset County, New
Jersey, that resulted in the most arrests of any intercept terminated in 2005 was the lead wiretap of six
intercepts authorized for a narcotics investigation that
led to the arrest of 62 persons. The Southern District
of New York reported the most arrests of any federal
wiretap; a wiretap used in a racketeering investigation there yielded the arrest of 51 persons. The leader
among state intercepts in producing convictions was
a wiretap that was the lead wiretap of ten intercepts
authorized in Rockland County, New York, for a narcotics investigation, which led to the conviction of 39
of the 40 persons arrested. The next largest number
of convictions reported to have resulted from a state
wiretap occurred in Queens County, New York, where
the lead wiretap of nine intercepts authorized in a
gambling investigation yielded the conviction of 31
persons. The District of South Carolina reported the
most convictions of any federal wiretap; there the lead
wiretap of two intercepts authorized in a narcotics
investigation produced convictions for 32 of the 49
persons arrested. A wiretap that was the lead wiretap
of two used in a narcotics investigation in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin resulted in the conviction of all
of the 27 persons arrested.
Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The Northern District of
Georgia reported that a federal wiretap involving
cellular telephone surveillance during a narcotics
conspiracy investigation led to 28 arrests; in addition,
the reporting officials stated that this wiretap “resulted
12

Summary of Reports for Years
Ending December 31, 1995
Through 2005

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 2005, a total of 1,451 arrests, 1,638
convictions, and additional costs of $10,492,657
arose from and were reported for wiretaps completed
in previous years. Table 8 summarizes additional
prosecution activity by jurisdiction from supplemental
reports on intercepts terminated in the years noted.
Sixty-one percent of the supplemental reports of additional activity in 2005 involved wiretaps terminated
in 2004. Of all supplemental arrests, convictions, and
costs reported in 2005, intercepts concluded in 2004
led to 67 percent of arrests, 55 percent of convictions,
and 84 percent of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the
total number of arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts terminated in calendar years 1995 through
2005.

Table 7 provides information on intercepts reported each year from 1995 to 2005. 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 1995 to 2005, the
number of intercept applications authorized increased
68 percent. The majority of wiretaps consistently
have been used for drug crime investigations, which
accounted for 81 percent of intercept applications
in 2005. Between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of
drug-related wiretaps has ranged from 69 percent to
this year’s high of 81 percent of all authorized applications.

Supplementary Reports
Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials
must file supplementary reports on additional court

13