Title
III
Leslie
K. Penny
Module
4 Research Assignment 2
Chancellor
University
Title III
Authorities use wiretapping and electronic
surveillance in every day investigations.
These tools have been regulated by the federal statute called the
Wiretap Act since 1968 with an amendment in 1986 in order to keep up with our
advancing technology (Kanovitz, p 293).
Title III "prohibits the government from intercepting a protected
communication with a device unless a judge issues a wiretap order or one of the
parties consents" (Kanovitz, p 293).
Important key features of Title III is that a wiretap is required to
"intercept communication unless one of the parties consents; an
interception occurs when a device is used to acquire access to the contents of
a protected communication in the course of its transmission" and that
three types of communication are protected: wire, oral and electronic
(Kanovitz, p 294).
There
are certain aspects of Title III such as statistics that provide "data on
types of offenses under investigation, nature and locations of intercept
devices, costs and durations of intercepts, and intercept extensions
granted" (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). The following information will be collected
and discussed throughout this essay: who maintains statistics on Title III
wiretaps and electronic interceptions; when the most recent issue setting forth
these statistics comes out; how many were there in the previous year, both
federal and state and if it was an increase or decrease; which state had the
most intercept orders; which crime was it used most frequently (e.g. drugs,
gambling, extortion, etc.) ; and how many FISA applications were there in that
same year.
The
Administrative Office of the United States Courts maintain the statistics on
Title III wiretaps and electronic interceptions (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). The most recent report on wiretap activity of
federal, state, and local police published by the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts was from 2011 (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). According to the Center for Democracy and
Technology organization, a new report is released every Spring for the prior
year (The Nature and Scope of Governmental Electronics Surveillance Activity,
2013).
Each
wiretap report gives data on the following subjects: jurisdiction with statutes
authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications;
intercept orders issued by judges; major offenses for which court-authorized
intercepts were granted; summary of interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic
communications; average cost per order; types of surveillance used, arrests,
and convictions for intercepts installed; authorized intercepts granted;
summary of supplementary reports for intercepts terminated, arrests and convictions
resulting from intercepts installed and summary of intercepts orders issued by
federal judges as well as appendix tables that list United States District
Courts: reported by judges, United States District Courts: supplementary report
by prosecutors, State Courts: report by judges, State Courts: supplementary
report by prosecutors (Wire Tap Reports, 2013).
The
2011 report that covered intercepts between January 1st and December 31st saw a
total number of 2,732 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts which
was a decrease of 14 percent (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). To further break it down, the number of
applications for reported orders by federal authorities totaled 792, the number
reported by state prosecuting officials totaled 1,940 with a number of 25
states providing reports (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). The year before proved a 34 percent increase
with "3,194 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts that were
completed in 2010" and the amount of "applications for orders
reported by federal authorities was 1,2047" with state prosecuting
officials reporting an application number of 1,987, with 25 states providing
reports" (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). Therefore, the year before did show an
increase of 34 percent.
For
the 2010 report, California had the most number of applications with 657 while
in 2011 the most was 630 and again it was in the state of California (Wire Tap Reports, 2013) . The 2010 report shows that "drug
offenses were the most prevalent type of criminal offenses investigated using
wiretaps" and the same exact offenses for the next year in 2011 (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). Homicide came in second for the frequently
cited crime for both years followed by racketeering in 2010 and "other
major offenses" for 2011 (Wire Tap Reports, 2013).
Lastly,
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act "establishes a special statutory
procedure governing electronic surveillance conducted inside the United States
for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" (Kanovitz, 2010).
The book goes on to say that "surveillance orders require probable
cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power, agent
of a foreign power, or a member of an international terrorist
organization" (Kanovitz, 2010).
During the year 2010, "the Government made 1,579 applications to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for authority to conduct electronic
surveillance and/or physical searchers for foreign intelligence purposes"
while during the year 2011 "the Government made 1,745 applications to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for authority to conduct electronic
surveillance and/or physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes" (Wire Tap
Reports, 2013).
To
conclude, this writer was fairly impressed with the type of information that
the reports provide. Especially the
lengths and number of intercepts recorded.
For the 2011 report, the average amount of days a wiretap was in
operation was for 42 days. That is
rather interesting once one thinks about what all the individuals who were
being monitored were saying for all of those 42 days which was 2 more than the
2010 report (Wire Tap Reports, 2013). The report goes on to say that "the
federal wiretap associated with the most intercepts occurred in the Eastern
District of Michigan" because of a narcotics investigation that resulted
in the interception of 71,195 messages involving cellular telephones over 202
days (Wire Tap Reports, 2013).
To
conclude, the wiretap act is a federal law that works to regulate the
collection of actual consent of wire and electronic communications while
protecting the privacy of individual communications with others (Wiretap Act, 2013). Therefore, under the wiretap act it is
illegal to "intentionally, or purposefully, intercept, disclose, or use
the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication through the use of
a device" (Wiretap Act, 2013).
Title III supplies criminal and civil consequences for violations that
includes a variety of exceptions "to when interceptions and disclosures
are not illegal" (Wiretap Act, 2013).
Works Cited
Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law.
Albany: Anderson Publishing.
The Nature and
Scope of Governmental Electronics Surveillance Activity. (2013). Retrieved 03 27, 2013, from Center for
Democracy and Technology: https://www.cdt.org/wiretap/wiretap_overview.html
Wire Tap Reports. (2013). Retrieved 03 27, 2013, from United States
Courts: http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/WiretapReports.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment