Measuring Criminal Justice Technology Outputs: The Case of Title III Wiretap Productivity, 1987-2005

• NCJ Number: 223936
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 36 Issue: 4 Dated: August 2008 Pages: 344-353
• Author(s): Samuel Nunn
• Date Published: August 2008
• Length: 10 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Based on data for Title III State and Federal wiretaps between 1987 and 2005, this study examined the number of wiretaps, places wiretaps were installed, number of people whose communications were intercepted, the number of intercepted communications, the number of communications labeled incriminating, the arrests and convictions linked to wiretaps, and the associations among arrests and convictions.

Abstract

During the period examined, wiretapping was used mainly in investigating narcotics violations; and the number of people, interceptions, and incriminating interceptions increased over this period. One-fifth of the intercepted communications were labeled incriminating. Incriminating information was linked to arrests and convictions that unfolded over time. The greater the number of people intercepted, the more arrests resulted; however, convictions declined over time. Whereas arrests were driven by the number of intercepted persons, convictions were associated with the number of interceptions labeled incriminating. Two contradictory patterns in wiretaps were found in the latter years of the study period, i.e., large increases in the number of intercepted communications from 2003 through 2005 and overall declines in the measured productivity of wiretaps. Five lessons were drawn from this analysis of wiretaps. First, wiretaps produced different outputs at different stages of the development of wiretap technology. Second, wiretapping was a little used tool from 1987 through 2005, since it focused mainly on one type of crime, i.e., narcotics violations. Third, using the generation of arrests and convictions as the measure of productivity for wiretap technologies, wiretaps were less productive near the end of the study period. Fourth, this aggregate analysis of wiretap statistics was unable to determine how intercepted conversations contributed to the arrests and convictions of their targets, nor could it determine how effectively each wiretap was interpreted by investigators. Fifth, future research should focus on these unanswered questions. 11 figures, 1 table, 8 notes, and 48 references