Prison Phone Justice

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................................................................................................................................. 12
	 Arrests and Convictions......................................................................................................................... 12
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1996 Through 2006................................................... 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 2006.............................................................. 15
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted . ................................................ 19
Table 4
Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications .............................................. 23
Table 5
	 Average Cost per Order ......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 6
	 Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions
	 for Intercepts Installed .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 7
	 Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519................................................................... 34
Table 8
Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts
Terminated in Calendar Years 1997 Through 2005................................................................................ 35
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1996 Through 2006....................................................................................................... 39



Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges.................................................................................................................................... 40
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors.................................................................................................... 88
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges.................................................................................................................................. 116
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors.................................................................................................. 246



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, 2006, and December 31, 2006, and provides
supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 1,839 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2006, an increase of 4
percent compared to the number terminated in 2005. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities fell 26 percent to 461. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials grew 20 percent to
1,378, with 23 states providing reports, one more than in 2005. Installed wiretaps were in operation an average
of 40 days per wiretap in 2006, compared to 43 days in 2005. The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted increased from 107 per wiretap order in 2005 to 122 per wiretap order in 2006. The
average percentage of intercepted communications that were incriminating was 20 percent in 2006, compared to
22 percent in 2005.
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
2006, no instances were reported of encryption encountered during any federal or state wiretap.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for 2006.
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 2006 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. A total of 96 state and
local prosecutors’ reports were missing in 2006, compared to 57 in 2005. 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.

	
	

James C. Duff
Director

April 2007



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.


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 2006, a total of 24 jurisdictions reported using at least one of these three types of
surveillance as an investigative tool.

ted to federal judges and 1,378 to state judges. No
applications were denied. Compared to the number
approved during 2005, the number of applications
reported as approved by federal judges in 2006 fell
26 percent (see sidebar on page 8). The number of
applications approved by state judges rose 20 percent.
Wiretap applications in California (430 applications),
New York (377 applications), New Jersey (189 applications), and Florida (98 applications) accounted for
79 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 reported such activity in 2006, compared to 22 in 2005). In
2006, a total of 104 separate state jurisdictions (including counties, cities, and judicial districts) submitted reports, which is 7 more than the total for 2005.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2006 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 by
4 percent in 2006. A total of 1,839 applications were
reported as authorized in 2006, including 461 submit-

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
1,500

1200

900

600

300

0
1996

1997

1998 1999

2000

2001

2002 2003

2004

Calendar Year
F
Federal



State e

2005

2006

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 2006, the average length of an original authorization was 29 days, an increase of 1 day
from the average length in 2005. A total of 1,228
extensions were requested and authorized in 2006, a
decrease of 10 percent. The average length of an extension rose from 28 days in 2005 to 29 days in 2006.
The longest federal intercept occurred in the Northern
District of California, where an original 30-day order
was extended five times to complete a 180-day wiretap used in a corruption investigation. Among state
wiretaps terminating during 2006, the longest was
used in a racketeering investigation conducted in New
York County, New York; this wiretap, in use for 519
days, required the original order to be extended 19
times. In contrast, 15 federal intercepts and 76 state
intercepts 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 compared to
last year’s report and provided the following
comments:
Data provided for the current annual
report of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts suggest that
the number of federal wiretap-assisted
investigations conducted pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 2516 declined in 2006. These
data, however, do not reflect a large
number of complex and/or sensitive
investigations that continued into
2007 and thus could not be reported
to the Department of Justice by the
deadline, as well as some federal
investigations that were under court
seal. To avoid reporting such sensitive
and/or sealed matters, the Department
exercised extremely careful scrutiny
this year of wiretap data submitted
to it by federal agencies. Based on
Department statistics, we believe
that if all of these matters could have
been included in the data provided to
the Administrative Office, the 2006
Wiretap Report would not reflect any
perceptible decrease in the use of
court-approved electronic surveillance
by federal law enforcement agencies.
Any matters that could not be included
in the 2006 data should be reported in
future editions of the Wiretap Report as
soon as the underlying investigations
are completed and/or the matters
become unsealed.

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap
applications authorized in 2006 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 2006, a total of
92 percent (1,685 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized involved portable devices such as these, which
are not limited to fixed locations. This is a slight
increase from 2005, when 91 percent of all intercepts
involved portable devices.
	 The next most common specific location for
the placement of wiretaps in 2006 was a “personal
residence,” a type of location that includes single-family houses, as well as row houses, apartments, and
other multi-family dwellings. Table 2 shows that in
2006, a total of 3 percent (48 wiretaps) of all intercept devices were authorized for personal residences.

Combinations of locations were cited in 53 federal
and state applications (3 percent of the total). Twentyfour wiretaps were authorized for “other” locations,
which included such places as prisons, pay telephones
in public areas, and motor vehicles. Thirteen wiretaps



intercepts to conduct drug investigations was most
common in the Southern District of New York (61
applications), the Eastern District of New York (34
applications), and the Northern District of Ohio (24
applications). On the state level, the largest numbers
of drug-related intercepts were reported by Los Angeles County of California (220 applications), Queens
County of New York (87 applications), and the New
York City Special Narcotics Bureau (86 applications).
Nationwide, homicide/assault (119 orders) was specified in 6 percent of applications as the most serious
offense under investigation. Racketeering (90 orders)
was specified in 5 percent of applications as the most
serious offense under investigation. The categories of
gambling (56 orders) and larceny/theft/robbery (20
orders) were specified in 3 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 (27 orders) and corruption (19 orders).

were authorized for business establishments such as
offices, restaurants, and hotels. Together, “other” and
business establishments accounted for 2 percent of all
intercepts authorized.
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
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 2006, authorizations for 15 wiretaps indicated approval with a relaxed specification order, meaning they were considered roving wiretaps. This is an
increase from 2005, when eight wiretaps were reported as roving wiretaps. One roving wiretap approved in
2006 was a federal wiretap used in a narcotics investigation. The other 14 roving wiretaps were reported by
state authorities: 13 were used in narcotics investigations, and 1 in a racketeering investigation.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Prosecuting
Officials
In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must submit reports to the AO no later
than January 31 of each year for intercepts terminated
during the previous calendar year. Appendix Tables
A-1 and B-1 contain information from all prosecutors’ reports submitted for 2006. Judges submitted 96
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 homicide/assault
were the two most prevalent types of offenses investigated through communications intercepts. Racketeering was the third most frequently recorded offense
category, and gambling the fourth. Table 3 indicates
that 80 percent of all applications for intercepts
(1,473 wiretaps) authorized in 2006 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

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,839 communication interceptions
authorized in 2006, reports submitted by prosecutors indicated that intercept devices were installed
and results were reported in conjunction with a total
of 1,714 orders. As shown in Table 2, orders for 29
wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps actu-



Drugs as the Major Offense

1,500

1,433

1,473

1,308
1,200

1,167

1,104
1,052

900

821

955

978

374

372

894

870

600

328 316

402
296

324

306

1998 1999 2000

2001

2002

340

338

366

300

0
1996 1997

2003

2004

2005 2006

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

ally were installed, and results from 96 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 2006, installed wiretaps were in operation an
average of 40 days, three days fewer than the average
number of days wiretaps were in operation in 2005.
The federal wiretap with the most intercepts occurred
in the Northern District of California, where a narcotics investigation involving the interception of cellular
telephone communications resulted in the interception
of 31,659 messages over 120 days. The federal wiretap
with the second highest number of intercepts, also a
cellular telephone wiretap, occurred in the Southern
District of New York as part of a narcotics investigation; this wiretap was active for 165 days and resulted
in a total of 27,167 interceptions. The federal wiretaps
with the highest number of interceptions per day also
involved cellular telephone intercepts: one wiretap
lasting 9 days that was used in a narcotics investigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana produced an

average of 909 interceptions per day, and one wiretap
used in a narcotics investigation in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for 13 days led to an average of 612
interceptions per day.
The state wiretap with the most intercepts
occurred in New York County, New York, where a
519-day wiretap used in a racketeering investigation
involving the interception of cellular telephone communications resulted in the interception of 105,000
messages, 75,000 of which were incriminating. The
9th Judicial Circuit in Florida reported the state wiretap with the highest number of interceptions per day.
In that case, a 60-day standard telephone wiretap at a
business location produced an average of 818 intercepts per day for a racketeering investigation. Four
other jurisdictions reported wiretaps that averaged
more than 600 intercepts per day. A 15-day wiretap
used in a murder investigation in Los Angeles County,
California, had an average of 683 intercepts per day; a
1-day wiretap used in a murder investigation in Hudson County, New Jersey, averaged 668 intercepts per
day; a 30-day wiretap used in a narcotics investigation
in San Diego, California, averaged 624 intercepts per
day; and a 30-day wiretap used in a narcotics investigation in San Bernardino, California, had an average
10

of 615 intercepts per day. Nationwide, in 2006 the
average number of persons whose communications
were intercepted per order in which intercepts were
installed was 122, and the average number of communications intercepted was 2,685 per wiretap. An
average of 547 intercepts per installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence. The average percentage
of incriminating intercepts per order decreased from
22 percent in 2005 to 20 percent in 2006.
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 96 percent (1,650 cases) of intercepts
installed in 2006. Of those, 1,604 wiretaps involved
cellular/mobile telephones, either as the only type of
device under surveillance (1,556 cases) or in combination with other types of telephones (48 cases).
The next most common method of surveillance
reported was the oral wiretap, including microphones.
Oral wiretaps were used in 1 percent of intercepts
(17 cases). The electronic wiretap, which includes
devices such as digital display pagers, voice pagers,
fax machines, and transmissions via computer such
as electronic mail accounted for less than 1 percent
(13 cases) of intercepts installed in 2006; 6 of these
involved electronic pagers, and 7 involved computers.
A combination of surveillance methods was used in 2
percent of intercepts (34 cases); of these combination
intercepts, 94 percent (32 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

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)
80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Calendar Year

11

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 2006, no instances
were reported of encryption encountered during any
federal or state wiretap.

where the lead wiretap of 28 intercepts authorized in
a narcotics investigation yielded the conviction of 25
persons. The Eastern District of Tennessee reported
the most convictions for any federal wiretap; there the
lead wiretap of 6 intercepts authorized in a narcotics
investigation produced convictions for all 40 persons
arrested. A wiretap that was the lead wiretap of 2 used
in a narcotics investigation in the Southern District
of Florida resulted in convictions for 38 of the 40
persons arrested.
Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The Southern District of New
York reported that a federal wiretap involving cellular
telephone surveillance during a mail fraud investigation led to 16 arrests, including those of 7 New York
City employees, and 8 convictions. Surveillance of
cellular telephone communications during a bank
fraud investigation in the District of Nevada led to 24
arrests. The reporting official stated that this wiretap
“allowed identification of additional co-conspirators,
[revealed] methods of operation of criminal organization, and obtained incriminating statements.” Officials
in the Western District of Kentucky reported that oral
surveillance in a barber shop identified 8 additional
defendants who participated in a drug conspiracy
and led to a 30-count federal indictment that charged
10 defendants with conspiracy to distribute cocaine,
crack cocaine, and marijuana. Five of the defendants
were convicted of drug conspiracy in 2006.
At the state level, the New York City Special
Narcotics Bureau reported that a cellular telephone
wiretap in use for 28 days resulted in the seizure
of 1,045 pounds of cocaine from a tractor trailer in
Hackensack, New Jersey, with an estimated street
value of $42 million. The Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) Task Force, along with special narcotics investigators and state police, also arrested six individuals.
In a separate narcotics investigation, the New York
City Special Narcotics Bureau reported that a cellular
telephone wiretap in use for 39 days resulted in the
seizure of $9 million and the indictment of 4 individuals for money laundering. The Office of the Attorney
General in North Carolina reported that interceptions
obtained from a cellular telephone wiretap conducted
over 68 days in a narcotics investigation “was crucial
to identifying the other members of the organization
and [allowed] law enforcement to learn when and
where the drug shipments were coming to NC.” As a

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses related
to intercept orders in 2006. The expenditures noted
reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and
monitoring communications for the 1,576 authorizations for which reports included cost data. The
average cost of intercept devices installed in 2006 was
$52,551, down 5 percent from the average cost in
2005. For federal wiretaps for which expenses were
reported in 2006, the average cost was $67,044, a 5
percent decrease from the average cost in 2005. The
average cost of a state wiretap increased 3 percent to
$46,687 in 2006. For additional information, see Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1 (state).

Arrests and Convictions
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons arrested
and convicted as a result of interceptions reported as
terminated in 2006. As of December 31, 2006, a total
of 4,376 persons had been arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications,
6 percent less than in 2005. Wiretaps terminated in
2006 resulted in the conviction of 711 persons as
of December 31, 2006, which was 16 percent of the
number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps were
responsible for 51 percent of the arrests and 45 percent of the convictions arising from wiretaps during
2006. The Western District of Washington reported
the most arrests arising from a wiretap terminated in
2006; a wiretap used in a narcotics investigation there
yielded the arrest of 66 persons. A wiretap in Escambria, Florida (1st Judicial Circuit), which resulted in
the most arrests of any state intercept terminated in
2006, was the lead wiretap of 7 intercepts authorized
for a narcotics investigation that led to the arrest of
63 persons. The leader among state intercepts in
producing convictions was a wiretap authorized in
Mesa County, Colorado (21st Judicial District), for a
narcotics investigation, which led to the conviction
of 31 of the 35 persons arrested. The next-largest
number of convictions reported to have resulted from
a state wiretap occurred in Queens County, New York,
12

result, nine persons were arrested and eight persons
were convicted of trafficking in cocaine.
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 2006 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.

wiretaps ranged from 71 percent to 81 percent of all
authorized applications.

Supplementary Reports
Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials
must file supplementary reports on additional court
or police activity occurring as a result of intercepts
reported in prior years. Because many wiretap orders
are related to large-scale criminal investigations that
cross county and state boundaries, supplementary
reports are necessary to fulfill reporting requirements.
Arrests, trials, and convictions resulting from these
interceptions often do not occur within the same year
in which the intercept was first reported. Appendix
Tables A-2 and B-2 provide detailed data from all
supplementary reports submitted.
During 2006, a total of 2,276 arrests, 2,348
convictions, and additional costs of $17,914,424
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.
Fifty-five percent of the supplemental reports of
additional activity in 2006 involved wiretaps terminated in 2005. Of all supplemental arrests, convictions, and costs reported in 2006, intercepts
concluded in 2005 led to 66 percent of arrests, 60
percent of convictions, and 62 percent of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the total number of arrests and
convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in
calendar years 1996 through 2006.

Summary of Reports for Years
Ending December 31, 1996
Through 2006
Table 7 provides information on intercepts reported each year from 1996 to 2006. 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 1996 to 2006, the
number of intercept applications authorized, by year
(as reported through 2006), increased 54 percent.
The majority of wiretaps consistently have been used
for drug crime investigations, which accounted for
80 percent of intercept applications in 2006. Between 1996 and 2006, the percentage of drug-related

13