Pubdate: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 Source: Baltimore Sun (MD) Copyright: 2002 The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper. Contact: http://www.sunspot.net/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37 Author: Sarah Koenig MD. AUTHORITIES SEEK TO STREAMLINE PROCESS OF APPROVING WIRETAPS Use Of Technology By Criminals Outruns Current Authority Aware that police might be eavesdropping, drug dealers not only watch what they say on their cell phones. They "burn" their phones and "bust" them. They create phantom phone numbers and treat a handset the way a tourist might treat a disposable camera, discarding it after a few good shots. As prosecutors and detectives in Baltimore increase the use of wiretaps against major drug organizations, they have discovered that their targets' phone capabilities outpace their own. To catch up, law enforcement officials from across Maryland are proposing legislative changes that would expand and simplify the use of wiretaps. A principal objective is to be able to quickly switch a wiretap from phone to phone, mirroring a suspect's maneuvers. "Over the last couple of years, as we've been doing more of these wiretap investigations, we've come face to face with what the shortcomings are," said city State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy, who will hold a news conference on the issue today. But efforts to streamline the wiretap application process, which is now closely reviewed by a judge, are sure to meet some opposition in the General Assembly from the American Civil Liberties Union, among others. "There is reason to be concerned that the police will become Big Brother," said Maryland ACLU spokesman Dwight Sullivan. "We want police to be aggressive in fighting crime, but we also need to have the barrier between the aggressiveness and the public, and that barrier is the judge." Wiretapping is the most intrusive and sophisticated investigative tool police have, to be used only when more conventional methods are exhausted. Maryland's wiretap laws, which require more judicial oversight and offer less flexibility than those of most other states, were last updated in 1988, back when having a pager was cool. Since then, investigators say, technology and sophistication have shot ahead. It's not unusual for drug organizations to buy cell phones in bulk, making sure not to use one line for more than a few days. In one Baltimore case, a suspect owned about 50 cell phones. Warrant for each phone Current law is geared more toward the phone than the suspect, requiring investigators to reapply for a new warrant each time they want to listen to a new line - a process that means writing about 100 pages of affidavits explaining to a judge why the wiretap is crucial to a case. Rewriting the warrant application also slows down an investigation, sometimes at a crucial moment. In July, for instance, Eric L. Buckson, 31, a now-convicted drug dealer serving a 40-year prison sentence, had just met with a cocaine source when he noticed someone following his car. He hit a parked vehicle, then another. His car burst into flames and he ran away, leaving the drugs and his tapped cell phone to get drowned by firefighters. To Buckson, the incident was probably a scare and a nuisance. To investigators it represented a significant obstacle: Within hours, Buckson was using a new phone, but it would take prosecutors much longer to apply for a new wiretap. By the end of the investigation, prosecutors would tap 15 different phones, creating 22,000 pages of evidence. Criminals have advantage Maj. Anthony G. Cannavale, commander of the Baltimore Police Department's drug enforcement unit, said changes to the law would help reduce the criminals' advantage. "It's always a game of wits with the drug dealers," he said. "We're really at a breakwater point, where if we don't get a handle on the technology, we're going to be out of business." In the past couple of years, Baltimore has greatly expanded its use of wiretaps in an effort to move from street arrests of low-level drug pushers to kingpins with international narcotics connections. The city Police Department and State's Attorney's Office have created special "technology" units, and they perform more wiretap investigations than any other jurisdiction in Maryland. Though wiretaps consume enormous amounts of time and money, their success is undeniable, as compiled in a recent report prepared by Jessamy's office: In the past two years, wiretaps have led to the dismantling of nine drug organizations - a total of 118 defendants with links to Colombia and the Dominican Republic, and the seizure of nearly $800,000, 66 cars, 84 guns, 14 kilos of heroin and 10.5 kilos of cocaine. But criminals are becoming more savvy about wiretaps, thanks in part to the recent investigations. Tipped by attorneys Cannavale said his officers have found wiretap affidavits, which include extensive surveillance details, when searching drug dealers' houses - documents probably provided by their lawyers. In wiretap transcripts, defendants routinely talk about ditching phones and getting new ones. They give out numbers of unregistered phones, and even discuss the possibility their phones are tapped. Cannavale described the ingenious ways criminals avoid surveillance. They get friends to set up phony companies, ordering a block of cell phones with similar numbers. They pay the first bill, then run up the next bill to thousands of dollars before tossing out the phones - a practice called "busting." They also buy what they call "burners," phones with prepaid minutes that anyone can buy cheaply, without credit, at a Kmart or 7-Eleven. When the minutes are up, they throw away the phone and buy another. Drug dealers can even create phantom phones, Cannavale said. Someone working inside a wireless company will digitally program a phone on the company network without registering the number, making it impossible to track. These methods are so common, said Frank C. Meyer, chief of investigations for the Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office, that "if they're not doing it, they're not worth looking at." And then there's the technology that's difficult to tap, such as the "walkie-talkie" feature on Nextel phones, and E-pagers, which allow people to send text messages between pagers. "It's almost like how having a car revolutionized the way people got around," Cannavale said, sighing at the possibility that satellite phones would be next. Changes to the law proposed by Jill Myers, chief of the wiretap unit in Jessamy's office, would allow investigators to apply for a "roving" wiretap for suspects they know will use more than one phone - a practice allowed federally and in some states. Sullivan said he was "almost sure" the ACLU would fight such a change in Annapolis. He worries about potential police abuses, and that more innocent conversations will be recorded than necessary. If a suspect has 50 cell phones, "then get 50 search warrants," Sullivan said. "We're familiar with 'mission creep' in the military. Well, there's a bit of this 'technology creep' in the law enforcement context." Notification time Other proposed changes include extending the deadline for when investigators have to tell a person that he or she has been the subject of a wiretap. Current law allows a maximum of 180 days, but Myers says that's often not enough time to complete a case, because surveillance ends once a suspect is notified. Myers also wants to allow a single judge to have jurisdiction over all the wiretaps in a case, regardless of where the suspect goes within the state. Existing law gives circuit judges control over wiretaps only in their counties. Sullivan said the latter proposal could encourage "judge shopping." M. Albert Figinski, a defense attorney and lobbyist who helped write the federal and state wiretap laws, agreed. He called the notification and jurisdiction suggestions "absolutely repulsive." "That's way beyond what they need," he shouted, adding that he would personally testify against those ideas. Baltimore Circuit Judge John N. Prevas, who has handled many wiretap cases, also opposes extending deadlines for when investigators must notify suspects. Although some cases might be hurt by the limits, he said, "giving the power to hide things for too long is not healthy." Other suggested changes are more technical, such as giving detectives the authority to order computer companies to preserve e-mails as evidence. America Online, for instance, deletes e-mails from its servers two days after they are read, and preserves them for 28 days if unread. Added offenses In addition, Myers seeks to expand the list of 17 crimes, from murder to gambling, for which a wiretap can be granted, to include terrorism, harboring terrorism, and money laundering of narcotics proceeds and terrorist-related activities. Separate legislation already has been proposed to add offenses committed by "an international terrorist organization" to the state wiretap law. Jessamy and other Maryland prosecutors say whatever wiretap legislation they end up backing during the legislative session will not be as invasive as the new, expanded federal law regarding wiretap use, which was aimed at terrorists. Dubbed the "Patriot Act," it allows investigators to track e-mails and Internet connections without a warrant. That legislation passed in October amid protest from civil liberties groups. "We are in the business of attempting to dismantle major drug organizations," Jessamy said. "We value civil liberties. We will do everything by the book." Some defense attorneys said the proposed changes, which do not drastically reduce the court's control of wiretaps, sound reasonable. Robert C. Bonsib, a private defense attorney and former prosecutor in Prince George's County who helped write the current wiretap law and has lectured about it, said only the addition of "terrorism" worried him because the definition of such activity is unclear. As for the "roving" wiretap provision, he said, as long as it's used carefully, "That by itself doesn't give me any great heartburn." - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom