18 U.S.C. § 2519 — Reports concerning intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications

submitted 58 years ago by Pub. L. 90-351 to r/title-18-CRIMES-AND-CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE · 603 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

Judges who issue or deny wiretap orders must report yearly to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Prosecutors must also report details on interceptions, arrests, and convictions each March. The Director of that office sends Congress a full summary report each June.

(1) Every January, a judge who issued a wiretap order that expired the year before must report to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A judge who denied a wiretap order that year must also report. The report must state whether an order or extension was requested. It must state what kind of order was requested. It must note whether it was granted as asked, changed, or denied. It must give the period of allowed interception and the number and length of any extensions. It must name the offense in the order or application. It must identify who applied for the order and who approved the application. It must describe where the communications were intercepted. (2) Every March, senior prosecutors must send a similar report. This includes the Attorney General, a designated Assistant Attorney General, or the top state or local prosecutor. Their report covers the same order details as paragraph (1) for that year's applications. It must also describe the interceptions made. This includes how often incriminating conversations were caught, and how often other conversations were caught. It must state how many people were affected. It must state how often encryption blocked access to the plain text of the calls. It must state the resources spent on interception. It must give the number of arrests and the offenses involved. It must give the number of trials and suppression motions, with their outcomes. It must give the number of convictions and an assessment of how important the interceptions were. It must also include this same information for prior-year orders not yet reported. (3) Every June, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must send Congress a full report. It must cover how many wiretap applications were filed and how many orders and extensions were granted or denied that year. It must summarize the data reported under paragraphs (1) and (2). The Director may issue binding rules on the content and format of these reports.

facts

- Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2519, titled "Reports concerning intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications." - Originally enacted by Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, on June 19, 1968 (82 Stat. 222). - Subsequently amended five times, most recently by Pub. L. 111–174, § 6, on May 27, 2010. - The provision comprises 603 words across three subsections addressing judicial, prosecutorial, and Administrative Office reporting requirements.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

(1)

In January of each year, any judge who has issued an order (or an extension thereof) under section 2518 that expired during the preceding year, or who has denied approval of an interception during that year, shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts—

(a)

the fact that an order or extension was applied for;

(b)

the kind of order or extension applied for (including whether or not the order was an order with respect to which the requirements of sections 2518(1)(b)(ii) and 2518(3)(d) of this title did not apply by reason of section 2518(11) of this title);

(c)

the fact that the order or extension was granted as applied for, was modified, or was denied;

(d)

the period of interceptions authorized by the order, and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;

(e)

the offense specified in the order or application, or extension of an order;

(f)

the identity of the applying investigative or law enforcement officer and agency making the application and the person authorizing the application; and

(g)

the nature of the facilities from which or the place where communications were to be intercepted.

(2)

In March of each year the Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General, or the principal prosecuting attorney of a State, or the principal prosecuting attorney for any political subdivision of a State, shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts—

(a)

the information required by paragraphs (a) through (g) of subsection (1) of this section with respect to each application for an order or extension made during the preceding calendar year;

(b)

a general description of the interceptions made under such order or extension, including (i) the approximate nature and frequency of incriminating communications intercepted, (ii) the approximate nature and frequency of other communications intercepted, (iii) the approximate number of persons whose communications were intercepted, (iv) the number of orders in which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented law enforcement from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to such order, and (v) the approximate nature, amount, and cost of the manpower and other resources used in the interceptions;

(c)

the number of arrests resulting from interceptions made under such order or extension, and the offenses for which arrests were made;

(d)

the number of trials resulting from such interceptions;

(e)

the number of motions to suppress made with respect to such interceptions, and the number granted or denied;

(f)

the number of convictions resulting from such interceptions and the offenses for which the convictions were obtained and a general assessment of the importance of the interceptions; and

(g)

the information required by paragraphs (b) through (f) of this subsection with respect to orders or extensions obtained in a preceding calendar year.

(3)

In June of each year the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall transmit to the Congress a full and complete report concerning the number of applications for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications pursuant to this chapter and the number of orders and extensions granted or denied pursuant to this chapter during the preceding calendar year. Such report shall include a summary and analysis of the data required to be filed with the Administrative Office by subsections (1) and (2) of this section. The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is authorized to issue binding regulations dealing with the content and form of the reports required to be filed by subsections (1) and (2) of this section.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 222; amended Pub. L. 95–511, title II, § 201(h), Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1798; Pub. L. 99–508, title I, §§ 101(c)(1)(A), 106(d)(4), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1851, 1857; Pub. L. 106–197, § 2(a), May 2, 2000, 114 Stat. 247; Pub. L. 111–174, § 6, May 27, 2010, 124 Stat. 1217.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1968Enacted · Pub. L. 90-351 · 82 Stat. 222
1978Amended · Pub. L. 95-511 · 92 Stat. 1798
1986Amended · Pub. L. 99-508 · 100 Stat. 1851, 1857
2000Amended · Pub. L. 106-197 · 114 Stat. 247
2010Amended · Pub. L. 111-174 · 124 Stat. 1217

The record shows that this section was added by Public Law 90–351, title III, § 802, enacted June 19, 1968, and codified at 82 Stat. 222. The source credit further indicates that the section has been amended five times since its original enactment: by Public Law 95–511 (1978), Public Law 99–508 (1986, in two separate provisions), Public Law 106–197 (2000), and Public Law 111–174 (2010). This pattern of recurring amendment suggests ongoing congressional attention to the reporting requirements governing wire, oral, or electronic communication interceptions over several decades. Public Law 90–351 is commonly known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Title III of that Act is generally understood to have established the framework governing electronic surveillance by law enforcement, including wiretapping and interception of communications, in response to concerns during that era about both rising crime and the need to regulate government surveillance practices following earlier controversies over unauthorized wiretapping. The commonly cited purpose of Title III was to create judicial oversight and accountability mechanisms for interception activities. Within that framework, reporting provisions such as this one are generally understood to serve an oversight function, requiring judges and prosecutors to document interception orders and their outcomes to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and ultimately to Congress. However, the record does not establish the specific legislative reasoning behind the particular reporting requirements or their subsequent amendments, and this note does not speculate further on that point.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case