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 ....................................................................................................... 8
Locations ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Offenses ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials ...................................................................... 9
Nature of Intercepts ........................................................................................................................... 9
Costs of Intercepts ........................................................................................................................... 11
Arrests and Convictions ................................................................................................................... 11
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1991 Through 2001 ............................................ 12
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 2001 ........................................................ 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 ..................................................................................................................... 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 1991 Through 2001 .......................................................................... 33
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1991 Through 2001 ................................................................................................ 38

3

Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts
Report by Judges ............................................................................................................................. 40
Table A-2: United States District Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ............................................................................................. 84
Table B-1: State Courts
Report by Judges ........................................................................................................................... 108
Table B-2: State Courts
Supplementary Report by Prosecutors ........................................................................................... 216

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, 2001, and
December 31, 2001, and provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from
intercepts concluded in prior years.
A total of 1,491 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2001, an increase
of 25 percent compared to the number terminated in 2000. In 2001, wiretaps installed were in operation
on average 9 percent fewer days per wiretap than in 2000, and the number of intercepts per order was 12
percent lower. The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted declined 56 percent,
from 196 per wiretap order in 2000 to 86 per order in 2001.
Public Law 197, 106th Cong., amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that reporting should reflect
the number of wiretap applications granted for which encryption was encountered and whether such
encryption prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted
pursuant to the court orders. Encryption was reported to have been encountered in 16 wiretaps terminated
in 2001; however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law enforcement officials
from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for
2001. Appendix Table A-1 shows reports filed by federal judges and federal prosecuting officials. Appendix
Table B-1 presents the same information for state judges and state prosecuting officials. Appendix Tables A2 and B-2 contain information from the supplementary reports submitted by prosecuting officials about
additional arrests and trials in 2001 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. The AO, in turn, normally publishes the Wiretap Report in April of that year. However,
antiterrorism activity following September 11, 2001, and the initiation of the irradiation process for mail sent
to the federal government disrupted the U.S. mail service. Many reporting forms prosecutors mailed before
January 31, 2002, still had not been received well after the date the AO needed to finish processing all data
to meet an April publication deadline. Therefore, the data processing period was extended an additional 30
days so that the 2001 Wiretap Report could include these prosecutors’ reports.

Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director
May 2002
5

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

Reporting Requirements of
the Statute

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(FISA).
No report to the AO is required when an
order is issued with the consent of one of the
principal parties to the communication. Examples
of such situations include the use of a wire interception to investigate obscene phone calls, the
interception of a communication to which a police
officer or police informant is a party, or the use of
a body microphone. Also, no report to the AO is
required for the use of a pen register (a device
attached to a telephone line that records or decodes impulses identifying the numbers dialed
from that line) unless the pen register is used in
conjunction with any wiretap devices whose use
must be reported. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3126, the
U.S. Department of Justice collects and reports
data on pen registers and trap and trace devices.

Each federal and state judge is required to
file a written report with the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
(AO) on each application for an order authorizing
the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic
communication (18 U.S.C. 2519(1)). This report
is to be furnished within 30 days of the denial of
the application or the expiration of the court order
(after all extensions have expired). The report
must include the name of the official who applied
for the order, the offense under investigation, the
type of interception device, the general location of
the device, and the duration of the authorized
intercept.
Prosecuting officials who applied for interception orders are required to submit reports to
the AO each January on all orders that were
terminated during the previous calendar year.
These reports contain information related to the
cost of each intercept, the number of days the
intercept device was actually in operation, the
total number of intercepts, and the number of
incriminating intercepts recorded. Results such as
arrests, trials, convictions, and the number of
motions to suppress evidence related directly to
the use of intercepts also are noted.
Neither the judges’ reports nor the prosecuting officials’ reports contain the names, addresses,
or phone numbers of the parties investigated. The
AO is not authorized to collect this information.
This report tabulates the number of applications for interceptions that were granted or denied, as reported by judges, as well as the number
of authorizations for which interception devices
were installed, as reported by prosecuting officials. No statistics are available on the number of
devices installed for each authorized order. This
report does not include interceptions regulated by

Regulations
The Director of the AO is empowered to
develop and revise the reporting regulations and
reporting forms for collecting information on intercepts. Copies of the regulations, the reporting
forms, and the federal wiretapping statute may be
obtained by writing to the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts, Statistics Division,
Washington, D.C. 20544.
The Attorney General of the United States,
the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, any Assistant Attorney General, any
acting Assistant Attorney General, or any specially
designated Deputy Assistant Attorney General in
the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice
may authorize an application to a federal judge for
an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral,
or electronic communications. On the state level,
applications are made by a prosecuting attorney
“if such attorney is authorized by a statute of that
State to make application to a State court judge of
competent jurisdiction.”
6

Many wiretap orders are related to largescale criminal investigations that cross county and
state boundaries. Consequently, arrests, trials,
and convictions resulting from these interceptions
often do not occur within the same year as the
installation of the intercept device. Under 18
U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must file
supplementary reports on additional court or police activity that occurs as a result of intercepts
reported in prior years. Appendix Tables A-2 and
B-2 describe the additional activity reported by
prosecuting officials in their supplementary reports.
Table 1 shows that 46 jurisdictions (the
federal government, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and 43 states) currently have laws
that authorize courts to issue orders permitting
wire, oral, or electronic surveillance. During 2001,
a total of 25 jurisdictions reported using at least
one of these three types of surveillance as an
investigative tool.

numbers used in the appendix tables are
reference numbers assigned by the AO; these
numbers do not correspond to the authorization
or application numbers used by the reporting
jurisdictions. The same reporting number is used
for any supplemental information reported for a
communications intercept in future volumes of
the Wiretap Report.
The number of wiretaps reported increased
25 percent in 2001. A total of 1,491 applications
were authorized in 2001, including 486 submitted to federal judges and 1,005 to state judges.
Judges approved all applications. Compared to
the number approved during 2000, the number of
applications approved by federal judges in 2001
increased 1 percent,1 and the number of applications approved by state judges rose 41 percent.
Wiretap applications in New York (425 applications), California (130 applications), Illinois (128
applications), New Jersey (99 applications), Pennsylvania (54 applications), Florida (51 applications), and Maryland (49 applications) accounted
for 93 percent of all authorizations approved by
state judges. Although the number of states reporting wiretap activity was comparable to the
number for last year (24 states in 2001, 25 in
2000), reports were received from 100 separate
state jurisdictions in 2001, 15 more than the

Summary and Analysis of
Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated
during calendar year 2001 appear in Appendix
Tables A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations
1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Calendar Year
Federal

State

7

1998

1999

2000

2001

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Percent of Total Authorizations

State
58.4%

State
67.4%

Federal
41.6%

Federal
32.6%

1991

2001

taps terminating during 2001, the longest was
used in a narcotics investigation in New York
County, New York; this wiretap required a 30-day
order to be extended 15 times to keep the intercept in operation 431 days. In contrast, 18 federal
intercepts and 78 state intercepts each were in
operation for less than a week.

number of state jurisdictions that reported wiretaps in 2000.

Authorized Lengths of
Intercepts
Table 2 presents the number of intercept
orders issued in each jurisdiction that provided
reports, the number of amended intercept orders
issued, the number of extensions granted, the
average lengths of the original authorizations and
their extensions, the total number of days the
intercepts actually were in operation, and the
nature of the location where each interception of
communications occurred. Most state laws limit
the period of surveillance under an original order
to 30 days. This period, however, can be lengthened by one or more extensions if the authorizing
judge determines that additional time for surveillance is warranted.
During 2001, the average length of an original authorization was 27 days, down from 28 days
in 2000. A total of 1,008 extensions were requested and authorized in 2001 (an increase of 9
percent). The average length of an extension was
29 days, up from 28 days in 2000. The longest
federal intercept occurred in the District of New
Jersey, where an original 30-day order was extended 11 times to complete a 300-day wiretap
used in a fraud investigation. Among state wire-

Locations
The most common location specified in wiretap applications authorized in 2001 was “portable
device, carried by/on individual,” a category included for the first time last year in the 2000
Wiretap Report. This category was added because
wiretaps authorized for devices such as portable
digital pagers and cellular telephones did not
readily fit into the location categories provided
prior to 2000. Table 2 shows that in 2001, a total
of 68 percent (1,007 wiretaps) of all intercepts
authorized were for portable devices such as these,
which are not limited to fixed locations.
The next most common specific location for
the placement of wiretaps in 2001 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 2001 a total of 14 percent (206 wiretaps) of
all intercept devices were authorized for personal
residences. Four percent (60 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as of8

fices, restaurants, and hotels. Combinations of
locations were cited in 117 federal and state
applications (8 percent of the total) in 2001.
Finally, 6 percent (83 wiretaps) were authorized
for “other” locations, which included such places
as prisons, pay telephones in public areas, and
motor vehicles.
Since the enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, a specific location need not be cited in a federal application if the
application contains a statement explaining why
such specification is not practical or shows “a
purpose, on the part of that person (under investigation), to thwart interception by changing facilities” (see 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)). In these cases,
prosecutors use “roving” wiretaps to target a specific person rather than a specific telephone or
location. The Intelligence Authorization Act of
1999, enacted on October 20, 1998, amended 18
U.S.C. 2518 (11)(b) so that a specific facility need
not be cited “if there is probable cause to believe
that actions by the person under investigation
could have the effect of thwarting interception
from a specified facility.” The amendment also
specifies that “the order authorizing or approving
the interception is limited to interception only for
such time as it is reasonable to presume that the
person identified in the application is or was
reasonably proximate to the instrument through
which such communication will be or was transmitted.”
For 2001, authorizations for 16 wiretaps
indicated approval with a relaxed specification
order under 18 U.S.C. 2518(11). Federal authorities reported that roving wiretaps were approved
for two investigations, both authorized for use in
drug offense investigations. On the state level, 14
roving wiretaps were reported; 93 percent (13
applications) were authorized for use in drug
offense investigations, and one application in a
racketeering investigation.

that 78 percent of all applications for intercepts
(1,167 wiretaps) authorized in 2001 cited drug
offenses as the most serious offense under investigation. Many applications for court orders indicated that several criminal offenses were under
investigation, but Table 3 includes only the most
serious criminal offense named in an application.
The use of federal intercepts to conduct drug
investigations was most common in the Central
District of California (29 applications), the Northern District of Illinois (28 applications), and the
Western District of Texas (26 applications). On
the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau obtained authorizations for 117 drugrelated intercepts, which accounted for the highest
percentage (16 percent) of all drug-related intercepts reported by state or local jurisdictions in
2001. Nationwide, gambling (82 orders), racketeering (70 orders), and homicide/assault (52
orders) were specified in 5.5 percent, 5 percent,
and 3 percent of authorizations, respectively, as
the most serious offense under 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 2001.
Judges submitted 35 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 gambling laws
were the two most prevalent types of offenses
investigated through communications intercepts.
Racketeering was the third most frequently noted
offense category cited on wiretap orders, and
homicide/assault was the fourth most frequently
cited offense category reported. Table 3 indicates

Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,491 communication interceptions
authorized in 2001, intercept devices were installed in conjunction with a total of 1,405 orders.
Table 4 presents information on the average num9

Drugs as the Major Offense
1,200

1,167

1,000

955
876

978
894

870
821

800

732
679
634

600

536

374

400
320

326
285

296

278

1992

1993

1994

328

316

1996

1997

372
296

324

200

0
1991

1995

1998

1999

2000

2001

Calendar Year
Drugs
Other Offenses

ber 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 2001, installed wiretaps were in operation an average of 38 days, a 9 percent decrease
from the average number of days wiretaps were in
operation in 2000. The average number of interceptions per day reported by all jurisdictions in
2001 ranged from less than 1 to over 650. The
most active federal intercept occurred in the
Central District of California, where a 27-day
investigation of copyright infringement related to
software piracy involved an electronic wiretap of
computers and resulted in an average of 660
interceptions per day. For state authorizations,
the most active investigation was a 43-day narcotics investigation in Lubbock County, Texas, that
produced an average of 338 intercepts per day.
Nationwide, in 2001 the average number of persons whose communications were intercepted
per order in which intercepts were installed was
86, and the average number of communications
intercepted was 1,565 per wiretap. An average of

333 intercepts per installed wiretap produced
incriminating evidence, and the average percentage of incriminating intercepts per order decreased
from 23 percent of interceptions in 2000 to 21
percent in 2001.
The three major categories of surveillance are
wire communications, oral communications, and
electronic communications. In the early years of
wiretap reporting, nearly all intercepts involved
telephone (wire) surveillance, primarily communications made via conventional telephone lines;
the remainder involved microphone (oral) surveillance or a combination of wire and oral interception. With the passage of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986, a third
category was added for the reporting of electronic
communications, which most commonly involve
digital-display paging devices or fax machines, but
also may include some computer transmissions.
The 1988 Wiretap Report was the first annual
report to include electronic communications as a
category of surveillance.
Table 6 presents the type of surveillance
method used for each intercept installed. The most
common method of surveillance reported was
“phone wire communication,” which includes all

10

Arrests and Convictions

telephones (landline, cellular, cordless, and mobile). Telephone wiretaps accounted for 83 percent (1,171 cases) of intercepts installed in 2001.
Of those, 944 wiretaps involved cellular/mobile
telephones, either as the only type of device under
surveillance (865 cases) or in combination with
one or more other types of telephone wiretaps (79
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 6 percent (84 cases) of intercepts installed in 2001. Microphones were used in
6 percent of intercepts (88 cases). A combination
of surveillance methods was used in 4 percent of
intercepts (62 cases).
Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C.
2519(2)(b) in 2000 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
2001, no federal wiretap reports indicated that
encryption was encountered. For state and local
jurisdictions, encryption was reported to have
been encountered in 16 wiretaps in 2001; however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law enforcement officials
from obtaining the plain text of communications
intercepted.

Federal and state prosecutors often note the
importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining
arrests and convictions. The Central District of
California reported a federal wiretap that involved
cellular telephone surveillance in a narcotics conspiracy investigation that led to 9 arrests; in addition, the reporting officials noted that this wiretap
“resulted in the seizure of 223 kilos of cocaine, 7
weapons, 2 vehicles, and $87,580 in cash.” Another wiretap from the same district resulted in the
seizure of 25 million dosage units of pseudoephedrine. Reporting officials in the Northern District
of Ohio described a federal wiretap in use for 55
days in a narcotics investigation that resulted in 5
convictions, including those of 3 Ohio cocaine
distributors and 2 narcotics couriers from California. On the state level, the prosecuting attorney in
Lubbock County, Texas, reported that the information obtained in a wiretap using standard and
cellular telephone surveillance led to the arrest of
36 persons, 35 of whom were convicted of narcotics offenses, and indicated that “without the intercepts, no prosecutions or few prosecutions would
have been possible.” The Georgia State Attorney
General reported that a 10-day wiretap approved
as part of a racketeering investigation yielded
valuable information in an investigation of a
telemarketing “boiler room.” The reporting official noted that “the targets of the investigation are
suspected of running an illegal magazine sales
operation that specifically targets elderly persons.
Cases of this nature are inherently difficult to
prosecute because of memory and comprehension
problems the aged often suffer. The ability of the
State to intercept the deceptions as they take place
will be invaluable in obtaining convictions in this
type of case.” In New Hampshire, the State Attorney General’s office reported that a wiretap in use
for 29 days in a drug conspiracy investigation
produced 14 arrests, stating that the interceptions
were critical evidence in the State’s case, identified
numerous sources of the illegal drugs, and “prevented a violent home invasion.” The District
Attorney’s Office in Santa Clara County, California, described a 55-day wiretap used in an investigation involving the manufacture of
methamphetamine, which resulted in 17 arrests
and 2 subsequent convictions. The officials noted

Costs of Intercepts
Table 5 provides a summary of expenses
related to intercept orders in 2001. The expenditures noted reflect the cost of installing intercept
devices and monitoring communications for the
1,327 authorizations for which reports included
cost data. The average cost of intercept devices
installed in 2001 was $48,198, down 12 percent
from the average cost in 2000. For federal wiretaps
for which expenses were reported in 2001, the
average cost was $74,207, a 16 percent increase
from the average cost in 2000. However, the
average cost of a state wiretap fell 30 percent to
$33,650 in 2001. For additional information, see
Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1 (state).

11

Average Cost of Wiretaps (in Dollars)
70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Calendar Year

that the interceptions enabled law enforcement to
seize two methamphetamine “super labs,” the
locations of which were undetectable without the
interceptions; they added that “the sole evidence
of culpability against the two persons convicted
thus far was the intercepted communications.”
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons
arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions
reported as terminated in 2001. As of December
31, 2001, a total of 3,683 persons had been
arrested based on interceptions of wire, oral, or
electronic communications, 20 percent (732 persons) of whom were convicted (a decrease from
the 2000 conviction rate of 22 percent, but greater
than the 1999 conviction rate of 15 percent).
Federal wiretaps were responsible for 53 percent
of the arrests and 40 percent of the convictions
during 2001. A state wiretap in Queens County,
New York, resulted in the most arrests of any
intercept terminated in 2001. This wiretap was
the lead wiretap of six intercepts authorized for
use in a larceny investigation that led to the arrest
of 103 persons. The Eastern District of Texas
produced the most convictions of any federal
wiretap when an intercept used in a narcotics
conspiracy investigation yielded the conviction of
46 of the 53 persons arrested. The leader among
state intercepts in producing convictions was a

wiretap that took place in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, and was the lead wiretap of three used in
homicide and narcotics investigations. This wiretap led to 43 arrests and 39 convictions. Because
criminal cases involving the use of surveillance
may still be under active investigation, the results
of many of the intercepts concluded in 2001 may
not have been reported. Prosecutors will report
the costs, arrests, trials, motions to suppress evidence, and convictions related directly to these
intercepts in future supplementary reports, which
will be noted in Appendix Tables A-2 and B-2 of
subsequent volumes of the Wiretap Report.

Summary of Reports for
Years Ending December 31,
1991 Through 2001
Table 7 provides information on intercepts
reported each year from 1991 to 2001. The table
specifies the number of intercept applications
requested, denied, 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
12

incriminating intercepts. From 1991 to 2001, the
number of intercept applications authorized increased 74 percent. The majority of wiretaps
involved drug-related investigations, ranging from
63 percent of all applications authorized in 1991
to 78 percent in 2001.

ecution activity by jurisdiction for intercepts terminated in the years noted. Most of the additional
activity reported in 2001 involved wiretaps terminated in 2000. Intercepts concluded in 2000 led
to 65 percent of arrests, 54 percent of convictions,
and 89 percent of expenditures reported in 2001
for wiretaps terminated in prior years. Table 9
reflects the total number of arrests and convictions
resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar
years 1991 through 2001.

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 2001, a total of 2,670 arrests, 2,112
convictions, and additional costs of $10,571,236
were reported from wiretaps completed in previous years. Table 8 summarizes additional pros-

Endnote
1

In 2001, the reporting of some wiretaps
conducted by federal organizations was delayed.
Records from some U.S. Customs Service (USCS)
investigations conducted in the New York City
area were destroyed along with the USCS’s facility
in the World Trade Center on September 11,
2001. Because of this loss, data on USCS cases for
the New York region that involved Title III electronic surveillance were not available to be reported in the 2001 Wiretap Report. Any wiretap
data that can be recreated will be reported later
and will appear in a subsequent volume of the
Wiretap Report.

13