Click here to subscribe today or Login.
SCRANTON — Federal law enforcement officers in Pennsylvania spent at least $3.9 million to tap suspects’ phones last year but secured just 30 convictions — none of which were for capital crimes — based on evidence they gathered, according to a new report from the U.S. Department of Justice.
According to the 2015 Wiretap Report, 100 wiretaps were authorized in Pennsylvania by federal judges and 48 by state and county judges, out of 4,148 authorized nationwide that year. Authorities mostly sought to tap suspects’ cellphones, in some cases seeking both voice calls and text messages.
Federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania — which has courthouses in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Harrisburg and Williamsport — authorized 16 wiretaps last year, which cost prosecutors a total of $896,032. Information gleaned from the wiretaps resulted in just six convictions, at an average cost of $149,338 per conviction.
Prosecutors in the Eastern District, which includes the Philadelphia metro area, had 15 wiretaps authorized and spent $1,215,540. There were a total of 14 convictions, at an average cost of roughly $86,824 per conviction. One narcotics case led to 12 convictions, the most in any federal wiretap case throughout the state.
The Western District spent the most, per conviction, of any district in the state, with prosecutors spending $1,884,426 over 68 wiretaps, resulting in 10 convictions — a cost of $188,442 per conviction.
At the state level, judges in Pennsylvania authorized 48 wiretaps, costing a total of $394,281, with 14 convictions. Reports on 21 of the wiretaps still have not been filed.
The report, released last week, is an annual requirement under Title III of the federal Omnibus Crime Control Act, which regulates when and how law enforcement agencies may intercept electronic communications in criminal investigations.
The annual report does not include wiretaps authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees domestic surveillance of foreign spies.
Under Title III, prosecutors are generally required to show officers have exhausted less-invasive investigative techniques before a judge can authorize a wiretap on a suspect’s phone, and investigators are in turn required to minimize the interception of non-incriminating communications.
Of the 16 wiretaps sought by prosecutors in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, three were for bribery cases, 11 were for narcotics cases and two were for racketeering cases.
Of those 16 wiretaps, prosecutors had yet to file reports for six as of Dec. 31, 2015. According to the Department of Justice, missing reports indicate late submissions by prosecutors, or instances in which prosecutors didn’t file reports to avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations.