State versus federal wiretap orders: A look at the data

Jason Chan; Jin Hyuk Kim; Liad Wagman

doi:10.1016/j.irle.2022.106064

State versus federal wiretap orders: A look at the data

Jason Chan, Jin Hyuk Kim, Liad Wagman

Information and Decision Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Federal and state law enforcement interceptions of communications, as authorized by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and analogous state laws, are contingent on obtaining a court order. We investigate how wiretap orders have been utilized in narcotics cases across the federal and state court systems. We characterize a sorting mechanism that is consistent with our data and empirical findings, whereby federal wiretap orders trade off prosecution outcomes and crime deterrence more quickly than state wiretap orders. We also find that the intensity of surveillance in most states and years is at the lower end of the enforcement-deterrence trade-off, reflecting the high cost of running wiretap operations.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	106064
Journal	International Review of Law and Economics
Volume	70
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2022.106064
State	Published - Jun 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
? We are grateful to the Editor (Eric Helland), two anonymous referees, Derek Bambauer, Lawrence Oh, Avani Sood, and participants at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, whose comments substantially improved this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge the Privacy Fellowship from the Program on Economics and Privacy at George Mason University. The usual disclaimers apply.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Keywords

Federalism
Law enforcement
Privacy
Surveillance
Wiretap

Publisher link

10.1016/j.irle.2022.106064

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{74a5c76c50da4ecaa6f249dd63fe5637,

title = "State versus federal wiretap orders: A look at the data",

abstract = "Federal and state law enforcement interceptions of communications, as authorized by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and analogous state laws, are contingent on obtaining a court order. We investigate how wiretap orders have been utilized in narcotics cases across the federal and state court systems. We characterize a sorting mechanism that is consistent with our data and empirical findings, whereby federal wiretap orders trade off prosecution outcomes and crime deterrence more quickly than state wiretap orders. We also find that the intensity of surveillance in most states and years is at the lower end of the enforcement-deterrence trade-off, reflecting the high cost of running wiretap operations.",

keywords = "Federalism, Law enforcement, Privacy, Surveillance, Wiretap",

author = "Jason Chan and Kim, {Jin Hyuk} and Liad Wagman",

note = "Funding Information: ? We are grateful to the Editor (Eric Helland), two anonymous referees, Derek Bambauer, Lawrence Oh, Avani Sood, and participants at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, whose comments substantially improved this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge the Privacy Fellowship from the Program on Economics and Privacy at George Mason University. The usual disclaimers apply. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2022",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1016/j.irle.2022.106064",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "70",

journal = "International Review of Law and Economics",

issn = "0144-8188",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - State versus federal wiretap orders

T2 - A look at the data

AU - Chan, Jason

AU - Kim, Jin Hyuk

AU - Wagman, Liad

N1 - Funding Information: ? We are grateful to the Editor (Eric Helland), two anonymous referees, Derek Bambauer, Lawrence Oh, Avani Sood, and participants at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, whose comments substantially improved this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge the Privacy Fellowship from the Program on Economics and Privacy at George Mason University. The usual disclaimers apply. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2022/6

Y1 - 2022/6

N2 - Federal and state law enforcement interceptions of communications, as authorized by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and analogous state laws, are contingent on obtaining a court order. We investigate how wiretap orders have been utilized in narcotics cases across the federal and state court systems. We characterize a sorting mechanism that is consistent with our data and empirical findings, whereby federal wiretap orders trade off prosecution outcomes and crime deterrence more quickly than state wiretap orders. We also find that the intensity of surveillance in most states and years is at the lower end of the enforcement-deterrence trade-off, reflecting the high cost of running wiretap operations.

AB - Federal and state law enforcement interceptions of communications, as authorized by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and analogous state laws, are contingent on obtaining a court order. We investigate how wiretap orders have been utilized in narcotics cases across the federal and state court systems. We characterize a sorting mechanism that is consistent with our data and empirical findings, whereby federal wiretap orders trade off prosecution outcomes and crime deterrence more quickly than state wiretap orders. We also find that the intensity of surveillance in most states and years is at the lower end of the enforcement-deterrence trade-off, reflecting the high cost of running wiretap operations.

KW - Federalism

KW - Law enforcement

KW - Privacy

KW - Surveillance

KW - Wiretap

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127192597&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85127192597&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.irle.2022.106064

DO - 10.1016/j.irle.2022.106064

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85127192597

SN - 0144-8188

VL - 70

JO - International Review of Law and Economics

JF - International Review of Law and Economics

M1 - 106064

ER -

State versus federal wiretap orders: A look at the data

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this