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................................................................................................................................................... 8
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, 1998 Through 2008................................................... 12
	 Supplementary Reports.......................................................................................................................... 12

Text Tables
Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications ....................................................................................... 13
Table 2
Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 2008.............................................................. 14
Table 3
Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted . ................................................ 18
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 1996 Through 2007................................................................................ 33
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1998 Through 2008....................................................................................................... 38



Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges.................................................................................................................................... 40
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors.................................................................................................... 92
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges.................................................................................................................................. 118
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors.................................................................................................. 262



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, 2008, and December 31, 2008, and provides
supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 1,891 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2008, a decrease of
14 percent compared to the number terminated in 2007. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities fell 16 percent to 386. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials dropped 14 percent
to 1,505, with 22 states providing reports, two fewer than in 2007. Installed wiretaps were in operation an average of 41 days per wiretap in 2008, compared to 44 days in 2007. The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted decreased from 94 per wiretap order in 2007 to 92 per wiretap order in 2008. The
average percentage of intercepted communications that were incriminating was 19 percent in 2008, compared to
30 percent in 2007.
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
2008, two instances were reported of encryptions encountered during state wiretaps; neither prevented officials
from obtaining the plain text of the communications.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for 2008.
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 2008 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 54 state and
local prosecutors’ reports were missing in 2008, compared to 56 in 2007. 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 2009


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 2008, a total of 23 jurisdictions reported using at least one of these three types of
surveillance as an investigative tool.

reported as authorized in 2008, including 386 submitted to federal judges and 1,505 to state judges. No
applications were denied. Compared to the number
approved during 2007, the number of applications
reported as approved by federal judges in 2008 fell
16 percent. The number of applications approved by
state judges declined 14 percent. Wiretap applications in New York (433 applications), California (418
applications), New Jersey (175 applications), and
Florida (102 applications) accounted for 75 percent of
all applications approved by state judges. The number
of states reporting wiretap activity was lower than the
number for last year (22 states reported such activity
in 2008, compared to 24 in 2007). In 2008, a total of
110 separate state jurisdictions (including counties,
cities, and judicial districts) submitted reports, which
is 7 fewer than the total for 2007.

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2008 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 decreased 14
percent in 2008. A total of 1,891 applications were

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

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations
2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Calendar Year
Federal

State



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 2008, the average length of an original
authorization was 29 days, the same average length as
in 2007. A total of 1,266 extensions were requested
and authorized in 2008, a decrease of 26 percent. The
average length of an extension remained unchanged
at 29 days. The longest federal intercepts occurred in
two districts, the Central District of California and the
Southern District of Texas, where the original 30-day
orders were extended 6 times in each district to complete 2 wiretaps lasting 210 days that were used in
racketeering and narcotics investigations, respectively.
Among state wiretaps terminating during 2008, the
longest was used in a narcotics investigation conducted by the New York Organized Crime Task Force;
this wiretap, in use for 590 days, required the original
order to be extended 20 times. In contrast, 12 federal
intercepts and 70 state intercepts were in operation
for less than a week.

of locations, which was noted in 38 applications (2
percent of the total). The category “personal residence,” a type of location that includes single-family
houses as well as row houses, apartments, and other
multi-family dwellings, was the third most common
location cited. Table 2 shows that in 2008, almost
2 percent of all intercept devices (31 wiretaps) were
authorized for personal residences. Ten wiretaps were
authorized for “other” locations, which included such
places as prisons, pay telephones in public areas, and
motor vehicles. Six wiretaps were authorized for business establishments such as offices, restaurants, and
hotels. Together, “other” and business establishments
accounted for less than 1 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 2008, authorizations for 11 wiretaps indicated approval with a relaxed specification order, meaning they were considered roving wiretaps. This is a
decrease from 2007, when 21 wiretaps were reported
as roving wiretaps. All 11 roving wiretaps were reported by state authorities: 6 were used in racketeering investigations, and 5 in a narcotics investigations.

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap
applications authorized in 2008 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 2008, a total of
95 percent (1,793 wiretaps) of all intercepts authorized involved portable devices such as these, which
are not limited to fixed locations. This is a slight
increase from 2007, when 94 percent of all intercepts
involved portable devices.
The next most common location reported for
the placement of wiretaps in 2008 was a combination

Offenses
Violations of drug laws and homicide/assault
were the two most prevalent types of offenses investi

Nature of Intercepts

gated through communications intercepts. Racketeering was the third most frequently recorded offense
category, and gambling the fourth. Table 3 indicates
that 84 percent of all applications for intercepts
(1,593 wiretaps) authorized in 2008 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 Central District of California (33
applications), the Southern District of New York (30
applications), and the Southern District of Texas (21
applications). On the state level, the largest numbers
of drug-related intercepts were reported by Los Angeles County of California (164 applications), Queens
County of New York (118 applications), and the New
York City Special Narcotics Bureau (101 applications).
Nationwide, homicide/assault was specified in 5 percent of applications (92 orders) as the most serious offense under investigation. Racketeering was specified
in 3 percent of applications (58 orders) as the most
serious offense under investigation. The category of
gambling was specified in almost 3 percent of applications (54 orders). One other offense category in Table
3 with a significant total was larceny (43 orders).

Of the 1,891 communication interceptions
authorized in 2008, reports submitted by prosecutors indicated that intercept devices were installed
and results were reported in conjunction with a total
of 1,809 orders. As shown in Table 2, orders for 28
wiretaps were approved for which no wiretaps actually were installed, and results from 54 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 2008, installed wiretaps were in operation
an average of 41 days, 3 days fewer than the average
number of days wiretaps were in operation in 2007.
Three interrelated federal wiretaps with the most
intercepts occurred in the Northern District of Illinois,
where narcotics investigations involving cellular telephones and other electronic communications resulted
in the interception of 104,777 messages. The federal
wiretap with the second highest number of intercepts,
a cellular telephone wiretap, occurred in the Southern
District of California as part of a narcotics investigation; this wiretap was active for 60 days and resulted
in a total of 33,419 interceptions.
The state wiretap with the most intercepts was
conducted by the New York Organized Crime Task
Force, which used a 590-day wiretap in a narcotics
investigation involving cellular telephones and oral
communications that resulted in the interception of
168,292 messages, 18,353 of which were incriminating. A second wiretap installed by the New York
Organized Crime Task Force lasted 219 days and
generated a total of 58,926 cellular and standard telephone intercepts.
Nationwide, in 2008 the average number of persons whose communications were intercepted per order in which intercepts were installed was 92, and the
average number of communications intercepted was
2,707 per wiretap. An average of 514 intercepts per
installed wiretap produced incriminating evidence.
The average percentage of incriminating intercepts
per order decreased from 30 percent in 2007 to 19
percent in 2008.

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 2008. Judges submitted 54
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.


Drugs as the Major Offense

2,000
1,792

1,473

1,500

1,593

1,433
1,308
1,167

1,000

955 978

1,104

1,052

894

500
374 372

296

324

306

402

338

340

366

2005

2006

416
298

0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

2004

2007 2008

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

includes a mobile/cellular telephone with another
type of oral or electronic device. Combined wiretaps
were used in 2 percent of intercepts (33 cases). In
2008, a combination intercept reported for Middlesex
County in Massachusetts included cellular and standard telephones, a microphone, and a fax machine.
The electronic wiretap, which includes digital display
pagers, voice pagers, fax machines, and transmissions
via computer such as electronic mail, accounted for
less than 1 percent (10 cases) of intercepts installed in
2008.
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 2008, encryption was
encountered during two state wiretaps; neither instance prevented officials from obtaining the plain text
of the communications.

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 97 percent (1,757 cases) of intercepts
installed in 2008.
The next most common method reported was
a combination of surveillance devices, which usually
10

number of persons arrested. Federal wiretaps were responsible for 38 percent of the arrests and 29 percent
of the convictions arising from wiretaps during 2008.
The Central District of California reported the most arrests arising from a federal wiretap terminated in 2008;
seven related wiretaps in a racketeering investigation
there yielded the arrest of 118 persons. A wiretap in
Maricopa County, Arizona, which caused the most
arrests of any state intercept terminated in 2008, led
to arrest of 65 persons in connection with a narcotics investigation. The leader among state intercepts
in producing convictions was a wiretap authorized in
the 11th Judicial District (Hamilton), Tennessee, for a
narcotics investigation, which resulted in the conviction of 40 of the 43 persons arrested. The next-largest
number of convictions reported to have stemmed from
a state wiretap occurred in Queens County, New York,
where the lead wiretap of 50 intercept orders authorized in a theft investigation yielded the conviction of
33 persons. The Southern District of Ohio reported
the most convictions for any federal wiretap; there the
lead wiretap of 2 intercepts authorized in a narcotics
investigation produced convictions for 30 of the 31
persons arrested.

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses related
to intercept orders in 2008. The expenditures noted
reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and monitoring communications for the 1,703 authorizations
for which reports included cost data. The average cost
of intercept devices installed in 2008 was $47,624,
down 2 percent from the average cost in 2007. For
federal wiretaps for which expenses were reported
in 2008, the average cost was $70,536, a 7 percent
increase from the average cost in 2007. The average
cost of a state wiretap declined 6 percent to $41,154 in
2008. 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 2008. As of December 31, 2008, a total
of 4,133 persons had been arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications,
14 percent fewer than in 2007. Wiretaps terminated
in 2008 resulted in the conviction of 810 persons as
of December 31, 2008, which was 20 percent of the

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Calendar Year

11

2005

2006

2007

2008

Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. Speaking of a 60-day surveillance of cellular telephone communications during a
federal narcotics investigation in the Northern District
of Texas, the reporting official stated that this wiretap
allowed identification of illegal activities that resulted
in the arrest of 17 individuals and the seizure of 370
kilos of cocaine, 360 pounds of methamphetamine,
20 weapons, 5 vehicles, and $8 million in cash. In the
Eastern District of Virginia, a routine federal narcotics
surveillance identified incriminating cellular telephone communications that led to the arrest of 16
individuals and conviction of 10, as well as the seizure
of $2.3 million, 7 weapons, and 2 vehicles.
At the state level, San Diego County reported
that a multi-jurisdiction case involving a cellular
telephone wiretap resulted in the seizure of 52 kilos
of cocaine and $2 million, along with the arrest of 47
individuals and the conviction of 25. The New York
City Special Narcotics Bureau reported that a cellular
telephone wiretap led to the seizure of 180 kilos of
cocaine and $400,000. In a separate narcotics investigation, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau
reported that interceptions obtained from a cellular
telephone wiretap conducted over 36 days in a narcotics investigation resulted in the seizure of approximately 30 kilos of cocaine and $22,000.
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 2008 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.

offenses investigated; average costs; and the average
number of persons intercepted, communications intercepted, and incriminating intercepts. From 1998 to
2008, the number of intercept applications authorized
by year (as reported through 2008) increased 42 percent. The majority of wiretaps consistently have been
used for drug crime investigations, which accounted
for 84 percent of intercept applications in 2008. Between 1998 and 2008, the percentage of drug-related
wiretaps ranged from 72 percent to 84 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 2008, a total of 3,311 arrests, 2,698
convictions, and additional costs of $31,076,214
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-six percent of the supplemental reports of additional activity in 2008 involved wiretaps terminated
in 2007. Of all supplemental arrests, convictions, and
costs reported in 2008, intercepts concluded in 2007
led to 52 percent of arrests, 44 percent of convictions,
and 72 percent of expenditures. Table 9 reflects the
total number of arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts terminated in calendar years 1998 through
2008. n

Summary of Reports for Years
Ending December 31, 1998
Through 2008
Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1998 to 2008. 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
12