How does One Wiretap Order Affect the Community?

According to statistics complied by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for the entire United States over the last 10 years, an average wiretap order: /⁽¹⁾

Lasts about 30 days.
Intercepts approximately 1,500 to 2,000 conversations
Invades the private conversations of between 150 and 200 people
Only 20% of communications intercepted are incriminating
Costs between $45,000 and $60,000
Results in between 3 to 4 arrests.
Results in between 1 and 2 convictions

GOVERNMENT REPORTS REGARDING

CALIFORNIA WIRETAPS IN 1997

The following statistics are compiled by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the California Attorney general. They contain information which Title III and Penal Code section 629.62 require to be reported by all prosecutors applying for, and all Judges issuing or denying, wiretap orders.

NATIONWIDE, THERE WERE 1,186 INTERCEPTION ORDERS IN 1997.

569 orders were issued by the Federal Courts
617 orders were issued by State Courts

An average of 12 wiretap orders per state

THERE WERE ONLY 39 "COMPLETED WIRE INTERCEPTIONS"/⁽²⁾

FROM 1989 TO THE END OF 1996.

IN 1997 THERE WERE ABOUT 50 WIRETAP ORDERS

IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT

80 OF THE 99 ORDERS ISSUED IN CALIFORNIA

California reported to the U.S. Courts that there were 28 wiretap orders in 1997. The deadline for being included in the Federal Report was January 31, 1998.

The California Attorney General's Report, which allowed late reporting, initially reported 37 wiretap orders in 1997, but a later "Additional" Report listed another 21 wiretap orders, increasing the total to 58. However, two wiretap orders listed in the Federal Report were not listed by the Attorney General. Since the Los Angeles District Attorney has begun to comply with the law and provide notice, more wiretap orders have been disclosed which were not listed in either report.

The Public Defender's Office has found over 60.

PUBLIC TELEPHONES WIRETAPPED

The Government stresses the fact that the telephone booth from which the petitioner made his calls was constructed partly of glass, so that he was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye--it was the uninvited ear. He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls from a place where he might be seen. No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world. To read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication. (Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576.)

A Major Narcotics Wiretap Operation?

The Attorney General's "Additional" Report revealed one huge drug surveillance operation by San Bernadino County Disitrict Attorney in Los Angeles County and Orange. San Bernadino County spent $623,110, between June and November of 1997, on 17 "related" wiretap orders, each granted which were .

Los Angeles County Judge Perry signed 3 orders on June 24, three on August 18, three more on August 19, three more on October 10, and the final order on November 14. 5 were for public telephones. Orange County Judge Toohey signed all four of his orders on July 3. A single "total" cost was listed for all 17 orders; $623,110.

INVASIONS OF PRIVACY CAUSED BY 5 WIRETAP ORDERS FOR PUBLIC TELEPHONES

NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERCEPTED ON PUBLIC TELEPHONES
12,492
13,574
27,976
37,228
39,932
Total 131,202 PEOPLE.....
NUMBER OF INCRIMINATING CONVERSATIONS OBTAINED
1
1
1
4
4
........................Total 10

Note:
The privacy rights of 131,202 people were violated by only 5 orders issued in 1997. These California citizens, 99.9% of whom were absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, sacrificed the privacy of their intimate, private, personal conversations to police officers who listened and taped their conversations. Those conversations are now locked in the evidence vault of the District Attorney. They will remain for the next 10 years unless the orders them released. When it was all said and done, the citizens of San Bernandino County were charged $623,110.00. All that for 10 "incriminating" conversations which didn't even generate a single arrest. In fact, the entire operation did not produce one single arrest. This was a "major narcotics wiretapping operation."

Judges Issuing Orders in California

U.S. Courts Report for 1997

California

Attorney General's Report

1 Judge Harlan - Amador County

1 Judge Kane - Fresno County

1 Judge Price - Monterey County

1 Judge Tansil - Sonoma County

24 three different judges in Los Angeles County:

Los Angeles County Judges issuing wiretap orders:

17 Judge Rappe / ⁽³⁾

1 Judge Czuelegar

6 Judge Perry

*In 1997, the Presiding Judge of Los Angeles County designated Judge Perry and if he "is unavailable," then Judge Rappe, "followed by" Judge Czueleger.
On July 11, 1997, both Judge Perry & Judge Rappe issued wiretap orders.
On August 5, 1997, both Judge Perry & Judge Rappe and issued wiretap orders.

Amador not reported

2 Judge Kane - Fresno County

1 Judge Price - Monterey County

1 Judge Tansil - Sonoma County

28 - Los Angeles County

Report

17 Judge Rappe /⁽⁴⁾

4 Judge Czuelegar/⁽⁵⁾

6 Judge Perry /⁽⁶⁾(2 issued w/Judge Revak in San Diego County, 1w/Judge Bradley.)

2 Judge Taylor - Riverside*

"Additional" Report

13 LA Judge Perry for San Bernadino *

7 OC Judge Toohey for San Bernadino*

1 Judge Howat San Diego County

*In California, a Judge only has jurisdiction to issue wiretap order in their own county. A DA would have to apply to another countie's judge if they wanted to wiretap outside their own county.

Missing Missing

Fresno County

1 Judge Kane

7 OC Judge Toohey

1 Judge Howat San Diego County

Los Angeles County

3 Judge Czuelegar

13 Judge Perry

2 Judge Taylor - Riverside

Amador County

Judge Harlan on 10-22-97.

Los Angeles County

Judge Rappe on 10-30-97.

Related Offenses - The Attorney General Wiretap Report omitted the underlying offenses for 13 L.A. wiretap orders. The U.S. Courts' Report disclosed that all 13 to be related to "narcotics."

Los Angeles District Attorney"s" Applying for Wiretap Order

California Attorney General Report

All District Attroney Gil Garcetti

US Courts Report

Garcetti ..........26

Torrealba......... 2 /⁽⁷

California Wiretap Orders

Well Above-Average

$1,119,422.00 - Judge Czueleger - December 30, 1996

This wiretap order for Jail Pay Phones lasted 180 days,

(No convictions.)

$600,000.00 - Judge Ito February 13, 1994

120 day order.

$548,152.00 - Judge Ouderkirk March 20, 1996

3 other orders included.

No arrests.

$345,520.00 - Judge Czuelegar - May 13, 1997

$10,000 was attributed to costs other than labor.

Two to three other orders were included in price.

No arrests.

$339,000.00 - Judge Ito September 9, 1994

180 day order.

$165,000.00 - Judge Perry - June 12, 1997

$60,000 was attributed to costs other than labor for this 79 day wiretap.

$157,922.00 - Judge Tooney Ocotber 27,1997

A 56 day order.

No Arrests.

$161,840.00 - Judge Ouderkirk September 5, 1996

90 day order.

$226,750.00 - Judge Biafore April 24, 1995

30 day order.

$125,000.00 - Judge Perry - August 5, 1997

Applied for by Los Angeles District Attorney Torrealba and lasting only 45 days.

$10,000 was attributed to costs other than labor.

$103,260.00 - Unidentified Judge

60 day order.

Are California's Numbers Valid?
Penal Code section 629.62 requires an annual report to the Legislature on the number of "interceptions conducted under the authority of this chapter during the preceding year." The Attorney General has always reported to the legislature the number of "interceptions," as opposed to the number of "orders" issued.
However, we know from the Gaxiola case that one order can intercept 22 different cellular phones and an entire cellular telephone company. How valid is it to say California only had 60 orders last year, and 39 before that?
If all California orders contain similar numbers of interception, wouldn't that explain why the FBI found 1080 wiretaps in Los Angeles County on a single day?

HOW CAN THE FBI REPORT 1080 WIRE INTERCEPTIONS ON ONE DAY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY?
After reviewing reports from the courts and the telecommunications carriers, the FBI published statistics in the CALEA report that there were 1080 actual interceptions in Los Angeles County on one day. ( Read the CALEA report at http://www.fbi.gov/calea/calea1.htm.)

This figure is enormously disproportionate to the rest of the country number and to the number of reported interceptions as well. (If we're wrong, please tell us. We don't want to be right about this one. )
It should be noted that the number included not only wiretaps of communications, but pen registers, traps and traces, which only read the numbers dialed and don't obtain voice content. However, modern pen registers are capable of obtaining voice and call content. Documents show that "content capable" pen registers are currently possessed by law enforcement in Los Angeles County.
While the law only requires a general search warrant for pen register orders, a question arises whether the police have informed the courts that they have the capabilities of obtaining voice content from a pen register. Federal case law has held that a pen register so enabled is required to proceed under Title III regulations. (Wiretapping and Eavesdropping, 2nd Ed., (1995) Clifford Fishman and Anne T. McKenna, pp. 4-30; 4-31.)