The number of federal wiretaps has skyrocketed under the Clinton Administration.  Although the numbers have steadily been increasing for more than 10 years, 1994 was the first year in history in which federal courts have approved more wiretaps than state courts.  In 1992 there were 340 federal court orders allowing wiretaps.  This increased by 98% in 1995 to 672 and government officials believe that number to well over 700 in 1997.  "National security" wiretaps, however, are not included in this figure.  The Clinton Administration attributes the rise to stepped-up efforts geared toward fighting drug trafficking.

Congress passed a law in 1968 which allowed wiretaps for limited use, only in cases of organized crime and gambling.  Since then, crimes have been added to the list which permit use of electronic surveillance.  According to the 1995 Wiretap Report issued by the administrative office of the U.S. Courts, it has been years since a federal court judge has turned down a prosecutor's application for a wiretap order.  Frederick D. Hess, head of the Justice Department office which approves the applications for court ordered wiretaps said, "We are in essence exercising the Fourth Amendment here.  And we are not going to seize a person's conversation unless the statute and the Constitution are satisfied."

In a letter to the New York Times in November 1995, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh stated, "There is no intention to expand the number of wiretaps."   Yet in March of 1996, the FBI gave Congress estimates of future wiretapping needs for all law enforcement, and the number is up by 54% by 1998 and 130% by 2004.  In a letter to the Congressional Committee on the Judiciary Freeh stated, "Court ordered wiretapping is the single most effective investigative technique used by law enforcement to combat illegal drugs, terrorism, violent crime, espionage and organized crime . . . Merely maintaining without expanding the ability of law enforcement to conduct court ordered wiretaps is the signal most important problem law enforcement faces today."

One anomalous result of the increased federal surveillance has been the teaming up of the ACLU and the NRA to curtail federal wiretapping.  According to ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt, "Wiretapping is almost never used to investigate bombings, arson or firearms violations.  Indeed the last time a wiretap was requested by a law enforcement agency to investigate one of these crimes was seven years ago in 1988.  Ironically, while the number of wiretaps has been increasing, they have become even less useful as a law enforcement tool.  Again, according to the government's own figures, the proportion of incriminating conversations snared by a wiretap has been steadily dropping over the last two decades from 50% in the early 1970's, all the way down to 17% in 1994.  In other words, the government concedes that 83% - five out of every 6 - of the conversations it has intercepted in recent years were totally innocent."

In addition, the ACLU fought the Clinton Administration in 1994 over provisions in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act that required the country's telephone companies to include in their systems special access for government wiretaps as they develop new digital phone systems.

The greatest barrier to implementing federal wiretaps is the huge price tag.  Each wiretap costs more than $70,000 a month to operate including transcribers, monitors, surveillance teams, and investigators.  However, the FBI's budget has increased 53% since 1993, and the DEA's budget has risen 33%.  In addition, both agencies have indicated that they will ask for large budget increases for the fiscal year of 1997.

Further attempts to increase the government's electronic surveillance capabilities were quashed due to the collaboration of the NRA and the ACLU who lead the fight to vote down the wiretapping provisions of the Anti Terrorism Bill which had enjoyed wide bi-partisan support.  Clinton felt the bill still made important progress to thwart the threat of terrorism as he explained, "It may not go as far as I would like, but it does strike a real blow against terrorism, and I will be happy to sign it."

1996 Robin D. Gross
Send comments to: rdg@virtualrecordings.com