15 May 1997: Add Reno and Mecham letters.

13 May 1997
Source: Printed documents provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee and
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

JUD
EC1793

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
Received on

APR 29 1997

In the Office of
the President of the Senate

###

Office of the Attorney General

Washington, D. C. 20530

                              April 18, 1997

    Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
    President of the Senate
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Mr. President:

           This report is submitted pursuant to the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Title 50, United States
    Code, Section 1807, as amended.

           During calendar year 1996, 839 applications were made for
    orders and extension of orders approving electronic
    surveillance or physical search under the Act.  The United
    States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders
    for all 839 applications granting authority to the Government
    for the requested electronic surveillance and physical
    searches.  No orders were entered which modified or denied the
    requested authority.

                                     Sincerely,

                                     [Signature]

                                     Janet Reno

Judic
EC1792

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
Received on

APR 29 1997

In the Office of
the President of the Senate

###

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM
Director

CLARENCE A. LEE, JR.
Associate Director

April 29, 1997

Honorable Al Gore
President
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-0010

Dear Mr. President:

Pursuant to the requirements of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2519(3), I have the honor to transmit herewith the annual report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on applications for court orders made to federal and state courts to permit the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications during calendar year 1996.

> Sincerely,

> [Signature]

> Leonidas Ralph Mecham
> Director

Enclosure

A TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

# 1996
WIRETAP
REPORT

For the Period
January 1 Through
December 31, 1996

Statistics Division
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal judiciary Building
Washington, D.C. 20544
Phone: (202) 273-2156

## Contents

Report of the Director

Reporting Requirements of the Statute

Regulations

Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges

> Authorized Length of Intercepts

> Locations

> Offenses

Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials

> Nature of Intercepts

> Costs of Intercepts

> Arrests and Convictions

Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1986 Through 1996

Supplementary Reports

### Text Tables

Table 1

> Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications

Table 2

> Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 1996

Table 3

> Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted

Table 4

> Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications

Table 5

> Average Cost per Order

Table 6

> Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions for Intercepts Installed

Table 7

> Summary Report on Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519

Table 8

> Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts Terminated in Calendar Years 1985 Through 1995

Table 9

> Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in Calendar Years 1986 Through 1996

### Appendix Tables

Table A-1: United States District Courts

> Report by Judges

Table A-2: United States District Courts

> Supplementary Report by Prosecutors

Table B-1: State Courts

> Report by Judges

Table B-2: State Courts

> Supplementary Report by Prosecutors

### 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, 1996, and December 31, 1996, and provides supplementary information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded in prior years.

From 1995 to 1996, the total number of intercepts authorized by federal and state courts increased 9 percent to 1,149, primarily because of growth in applications involving the surveillance of narcotics operations (up 12 percent). The number of applications for orders by federal authorities rose 9 percent, and the number of applications by state prosecuting officials increased 8 percent over last year. The number of federal intercept applications authorized has grown substantially over the last 10 years, more than doubling from 250 in 1986 to 581 in 1996. In contrast, state applications have increased 13 percent since 1986. The number of intercepts employed in drug-related investigations also has experienced significant growth. Drug offenders were targeted in 821 of the interceptions concluded in 1996, compared to 348 in 1986, a 136% increase.

The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges and prosecuting officials for 1996. 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 1996 arising from intercepts initially reported in prior years.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) mandates the submission of wiretap reports in January 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. For this year's report, more state and local prosecutors' reports were either late or not submitted than is usual. The AO is grateful for the cooperation and the prompt responses we received from other officials around the nation.

> [Signature]

> Leonidas Ralph Mecham
> Director

April 1997

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

#### Reporting Requirements of the Statute

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(l)). 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 the 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 are also 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 authorization.

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; the use of a body microphone; or the use of only a pen register (a mechanical device attached to a telephone line to record on paper tape all numbers dialed from that line).

#### 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 report- ing 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 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 I shows that 46 jurisdictions (the federal government, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and 42 states) currently have laws that authorize courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral, or electronic surveillance. During 1996, a total of 24 jurisdictions used at least one of these three types of surveillance as an investigative tool.

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Number of Authorizations
[Chart Image 31K]

#### Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges

Data on applications for wiretaps terminated during calendar year 1996 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 reference number is used for any supplemental information reported for a communications intercept in future volumes of the Wiretap Report.

A total of 1,149 applications (an increase of 9 percent) were authorized in 1996, including 581 by federal judges and 568 by state judges. Judges denied one application. The number of applications approved by federal judges in 1996 grew 9 percent over the previous year, similar to the 8 percent increase in approvals by state judges. Wiretap applications in New York (246 applications), New Jersey (103 applications), and Florida (68 applications) accounted for 73 percent of all authorizations approved by state judges.

Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
Percent of Total Authorizations
[Chart Image 19K]

#### Authorized Length 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 length of the original authorizations and their extensions, the total number of days the intercepts were actually 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 1996, the average length of an original authorization was 28 days. A total of 887 extensions were requested and authorized in 1996 (an increase of 6 percent). The average length of the extensions was 28 days. The longest federal intercept occurred in the District of New Jersey, where the original 30-day order was extended 13 times to complete a 420-day racketeering investigation. A usury investigation in Queens, New York, that required a 30-day order to be extended 20 times represented the longest state wiretap. In contrast, 41 state intercepts each were in operation for less than a week.

Location

The most common location for the placement of wiretaps in 1996 was a "single-family dwelling," a type of location that includes houses, rowhouses, townhouses, and duplexes. Table 2 shows that in 1996 a total of 24 percent (281 wiretaps) of all intercept devices were authorized for single-family dwellings; 13 percent (150 wiretaps) were authorized for apartments; and 9 per- cent (101 wiretaps) were authorized for business establishments such as restaurants and hotels. 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 that the person under investigation is purposely thwarting an investigation by changing locations (see 18 U.S.C. 2518 (1 1)). In 1996, one federal intercept application involving a narcotics investigation in the Eastern District of Missouri requested a "roving" wiretap allowing prosecutors to target a specific person rather than a specific telephone or location. On the state level, two New York narcotics investigations (one in Monroe County and another in Westchester County) employed roving wiretaps. Combinations of locations were cited in 146 federal and state applications (13 percent), and 465 applications (40 percent) specified "other" locations such as public pay phones, mobile phones, paging devices, and cellular phones.

Offenses

Violations of narcotics, gambling, and racketeering laws remain the most prevalent types of offenses investigated through communications intercepts. Table 3 indicates that 71 percent of all applications for intercepts (821 cases) authorized in 1996 cited "narcotics" as the most serious offense under investigation. Many applications for court orders indicated several criminal offenses 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 (52 applications) and the Southern District of Florida (47 applications). On the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau conducted the most drug investigations, obtaining authorizations for 78 drug-related intercepts in 1996, which is more than three times the number for any other state jurisdiction. Nationwide, gambling (114 orders) and racketeering (105 orders) were specified in 10 percent and 9 percent of authorizations, respectively, as the most serious offense under investigation this year.

Drugs as the Major Offense
[Chart Image 25K]

#### 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 1996. judges submitted nearly I 00 reports for which the AO received no corresponding reports from prosecuting officials. For these authorizations, the abbreviation "NP" 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. Any information received after the reporting deadline will be included in next year's Wiretap Report.

Nature of Intercepts

Of the 1,149 communication interceptions authorized in 1996, a total of 1,035 intercept devices actually were installed. Table 4 presents information on the average number of intercepts per order, the number of persons whose conversations were intercepted, the total number of communications intercepted, and the number of incriminating intercepts. Wiretaps varied extensively with respect to the above characteristics. The average number of interceptions per day in 1996 ranged from 0 to more than 400. The most active federal intercept occurred in the Western District of New York, where a 55-day gambling investigation resulted in an average of 384 interceptions per day. For state authorizations, 20 reports indicated 0 interceptions per day, whereas a 228-day narcotics operation in Queens County, New York, averaged 409 intercepts per day. Nationwide, the average number of persons whose conversations were intercepted increased from 140 persons per installed intercept device in 1995 to 192 persons in 1996 (an increase of 37%). The average number of conversations intercepted was 1,969 per wiretap; an average of 422 intercepts produced incriminating evidence. The percentage of incriminating intercepts decreased slightly from 23 percent of interceptions in 1995 to 21 percent in 1996.

Table 6 presents the type of surveillance device used for each intercept installed. The most common method of surveillance was the telephone wiretap. Phone wiretaps accounted for 72 percent (750 cases) of intercepts installed in 1996. Electronic devices such as digital display pagers, voice pagers, cellular phones, and electronic mail constituted 17 percent (171 cases) of intercept devices installed; microphones were used in 3 percent of intercepts. A combination of devices was involved in 8 percent of intercepts (79 cases).

Costs of intercepts

The average cost of intercept devices installed in 1996 was $61,436, a 9 percent increase over 1995. Table 5 provides a summary of expenses related to intercept orders in 1996. The expenditures noted reflect the cost of installing intercept devices and monitoring communications for the 1,007 authorizations for which reports included cost data. For federal wiretaps for which expenses were reported in 1996, the average cost was $81,424, a 12 percent increase over 1995. The average cost of a state wiretap decreased 7 percent to $35,885 in 1996. For additional information, see Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) & B-1 (state).

Average Cost of Wiretaps
[Chart Image 26K]

Arrests and Convictions

Federal and state prosecutors often note the importance of electronic surveillance in obtaining arrests and convictions. The Central District of California noted that a 1996 federal telephone wiretap, which led to the arrest of five persons and five subsequent convictions, resulted in "effectively dismantling one of the most sophisticated PCP/piperidine manufacturing and distribution organizations." Another federal intercept in that district resulted in the seizure of 1,179 kilograms of cocaine, 1,000 pounds of marijuana, and $3.1 million in cash, and produced nine arrests and convictions. A federal wiretap in the Southern District of Florida led to the arrest of 32 persons; the prosecutor's office commented that the case could not have been investigated to the same depth and scope without the wiretaps and that the wiretaps were "essential to the success of the investigation." This international fraud case involved a Nigerian credit card group that extensively used telephones to commit fraud and to sell illegally obtained credit card information around the world. The intercepted conversations led to searches and seizures of stolen credit cards and additional evidence. On the state level, the Onondaga County District Attorney's Office in New York reported that evidence gained from intercepts of a telephone, pager, and cellular telephone resulted in the arrest of four persons and three convictions. Moreover, the prosecutor's office commented that "the intercepts were absolutely crucial to the conviction of the kingpin in this investigation" because this man never exercised physical possession of the drugs, but controlled and orchestrated the purchases and the delivery of the cocaine, which was "known from the intercepts and the intercepts only." The Iowa State Attorney's office reported that a 1996 state telephone wiretap "was a key factor in helping a state/federal task force make a significant number of arrests for cocaine and methamphetamine trafficking in central Iowa. It enabled investigators to identify and gain evidence against the ringleader" and will help "lead to the dismantling of this criminal organization."

Table 6 presents the numbers of persons arrested and convicted as a result of interceptions terminated in 1996. As of December 31, 1996, a total of 2,464 persons were arrested based on electronic surveillance activity, 20 percent (502 persons) of whom were convicted (compared to the 1995 conviction rate of 19 percent). Although the majority of convictions in 1995 resulted from state wiretaps, federal wiretaps were responsible for the most convictions in 1996 (56 percent). A wiretap in the District of Connecticut resulted in the most convictions of any single federal intercept in 1996. This wiretap, used in a narcotics investigation, resulted in the arrest of 34 persons and the conviction of 27 persons. The most effective state intercepts in terms of the number of convictions took place in Queens County, New York, where one intercept resulted in the conviction of 13 of the 17 persons arrested; and in Arizona, where the State Attorney's Office reported that a narcotics operation led to the conviction of each of the 13 persons arrested. Because criminal cases involving the use of electronic surveillance may still be under active investigation, the results of many of the intercepts concluded in 1996 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 or B-2 of subsequent volumes of the Wiretap Report.

#### Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1986 Through 1996

Table 7 provides a historical summary of information on intercepts reported from 1986 to 1996. The table specifies the number of intercept applications requested, denied, authorized, and installed, and 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 1986 to 1996, the number of intercept applications authorized increased more than 52 percent. The majority of wiretaps involved drug-related investigations, ranging from 46 percent of all applications authorized in 1986 to 71 percent in 1996. The average number of incriminating intercepts remained relatively stable, increasing from 37 percent of intercepts installed in 1986 to 41 percent in 1996.

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 1996, a total of 1,668 arrests, 1,853 convictions, and additional costs of $2,400,061 resulted from wiretaps completed in previous years. Table 8 summarizes additional prosecution activity by jurisdiction for intercepts terminated in the years noted. Most of the additional activity reported in 1996 involved wiretaps terminated in 1995. Intercepts concluded in 1995 led to 75 percent of arrests, 60 percent of convictions, and 92 percent of expenditures reported in 1996 for wiretaps terminated in prior years. Table 9 reflects the total number of arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar years 1986 through 1996.

Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
Effective During the Period January 1 Through December 31, 1996*

                                                         Reported Use of          Number of Orders
    Jurisdiction          Statutory Citation**           Wiretap in 1996         Authorized in 1996
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Federal               18:2510 - 2520                       Yes                       581
    Alaska                12.37                                No                          -
    Arizona               13-3007 - 13-3011                    Yes                         5
    California            629 - 629.48                         Yes                        12
    Colorado              16-15-102                            Yes                         4
    Connecticut           54-41a - 54-41t                      No                          -
    Delaware              11 Del.C.Sect.1336                   No                          -
    District of Columbia  23.541 - 23:556                      No                          -
    Florida               934.01 - 934.10                      Yes                        68
    Georgia               16-11-64                             Yes                         6
    Hawaii                803-41 - 803-48                      No                          -
    Idaho                 18-6701 - 18-6710                    No                          -
    Illinois              38:108B-1                            No                          -
    Indiana               35-33.5-3-1                          No                          -
    Iowa                  808B.1 - 808B.9                      Yes                         1
    Kansas                22-2514 - 22-2516                    Yes                         1
    Louisiana             Act No. 121 3B No.233 15:1308(A)(2)  No                          -
    Maryland              10-401 - 10-411                      Yes                         6
    Massachusetts         272:99                               Yes                         1
    Minnesota             626A.01 - 626A.21                    Yes                        14
    Mississippi           41-29-501                            Yes                         4
    Missouri              33-542.400 - 542.424                 No                          -
    Nebraska              86-701 - 86-707                      Yes                         3
    Nevada                179.410 - 179.515, NRS200.620        Yes                        15
    New Hampshire         570-A:1 - A:11                       No                          -
    New Jersey            2A:156A-1 - 156A-26                  Yes                       103
    New Mexico            30-12-2 - 30-12-11                   Yes                         1
    New York              813-J-813-M; 814-825                 Yes                       246
    North Carolina        16.15A                               Yes                         1
    North Dakota          29-29.2                              No                          -
    Ohio                  2933.51 - 2933.66                    No                          -
    Oklahoma              13:176.7                             Yes                         4
    Oregon                133.723 - 133.739                    No                          -
    Pennsylvania          18:5701                              Yes                        53
    Puerto Rico           Law NO.33 Article 18                 No                          -
    Rhode Island          12-5.1-1 - 12-5.1-16                 No                          -
    South Dakota          23A - 35A                            No                          -
    Tennessee             40-6-302                             No                          -
    Texas                 18.20                                Yes                        16
    Utah                  77-23a-a - 77-23a-11                 Yes                         2
    Virgin Islands        5:4701- 4707                         No                          -
    Virginia              19.2-61                              Yes                         1
    Washington            9.73                                 Yes                         1
    West Virginia         62-10-1                              No                          -
    Wisconsin             968.27 - 968.33                      No                          -
    Wyoming               7-3-601 - 7-3-611                    No                          -

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

* Pursuant to provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2519.

** Includes only those jurisdictions that enacted legislation during or before calendar year 1996.

[Note: Text Tables 2-6, 8 and 9 (pages 14-35) and Appendix Tables A-1 to B-2 (pages 36-193) are not included here.]

Table 7

Summary of Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 2519
for Calendar Years 1986 - 1996

[Image 154K]

2 June 1997: Correction of 1996 Intercept applications denied: "1" not "-".

Source for Summary: http://www.uscourts.gov/pressrel/wire97.htm

## Summary Report on Authorized
Intercepts for Calendar Years 1992-1996

Summary Item | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 |
Intercept applications requested | 919 | 976 | 1,154 | 1,058 | 1,150 |
Intercept applications denied | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Intercept applications authorized | 919 | 976 | 1,154 | 1,058 | 1,149 |
Federal | 340 | 450 | 554 | 532 | 581 |
State | 579 | 526 | 600 | 526 | 568 |
Avg. days of original authorization | 28 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 28 |
Number of extensions | 646 | 825 | 861 | 834 | 887 |
Average length of extensions (days) | 30 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 28 |
Location of authorized intercepts:
Single-family dwelling | 303 | 267 | 319 | 322 | 281
Apartment | 135 | 139 | 131 | 101 | 150 |
Multiple dwelling | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
Business | 119 | 124 | 118 | 101 | 101 |
Business and living quarters, multiple locations | 70 | 92 | 97 | 115 | 149 |
Not indicated or other | 289 | 350 | 488 | 414 | 465 |
Major offense specified:
Arson, explosives, and weapons | - | - | - | 4 | - |
Bribery | 8 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 10 |
Extortion | 7 | 9 | 8 | 18 | 9 |
Gambling | 66 | 96 | 86 | 95 | 114 |
Homicide and assault | 35 | 28 | 19 | 30 | 41 |
Larceny and theft | 16 | 13 | 18 | 12 | 7 |
Narcotics | 634 | 679 | 876 | 732 | 821 |
Robbery and burglary | - | - | 6 | 5 | 4 |
Other or unspecified | 63 | 48 | 47 | 60 | 38 |
Racketeering | 90 | 101 | 88 | 98 | 105 |
Intercept applications installed* | 846 | 938 | 1,100 | 1,024 | 1,035 |
Federal | 332 | 444 | 549 | 527 | 574 |
State | 514 | 494 | 551 | 497 | 461 |

Hypertext by NYA/Urban Deadline.