were inundated with search warrant requests for electronic evidence. For example, prior to the
passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria, Virginia, was
receiving approximately 10 applications each month from United States Attorney’s Offices in
other districts for search warrants for records from a particular Internet service provider. For
each of these applications, an Assistant United States Attorney in Virginia and a law
enforcement agent in the district had to learn all of the details of another district’s investigation
to present an affidavit to the court in support of the application for the search warrant. The result
was that agents and attorneys spent many hours each month processing applications for
investigations conducted in other districts. Because of section 220, however, these attorneys and
agents can now spend their time on more important tasks than processing paperwork for other
districts’ investigations.
Investigations of terrorism and other crimes have also long been frustrated by the failure
of federal law to permit agents to gain access to voice-mail messages with a search warrant.
Prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, federal law required officers to waste critical time and
resources going through the burdensome process of obtaining a wiretap order (rather than a
search warrant) to obtain unopened voice-mail. This was so despite the fact that authorities
could use a search warrant, for example, to obtain messages stored on the suspect’s own
answering machine. Section 209 of the USA PATRIOT Act has modernized federal law by
enabling investigators to access more quickly suspects’ voice-mail by using a search warrant.
The speed with which voice-mail is seized and searched can often be critical to an investigation
because stored voice-mail is regularly deleted by service providers and thus lost forever.
Warrants pursuant to section 209 have been used to obtain key evidence in a variety of criminal
cases, including voice-mail messages left for those participating in a large-scale ecstasy
smuggling ring based in the Netherlands.
Since 1986, law enforcement officials have been able to obtain multiple-point wiretaps to
keep pace with drug dealers and mobsters who, for example, frequently switch cell phones to
evade surveillance. Prior to enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, such authority was not
available under FISA for cases involving terrorists. Section 206 of the Act, however, now
permits officers in international terrorism investigations to obtain a court order that applies to the
suspect, rather than a particular phone or phone company. This new authority has put
investigators in a better position to avoid unnecessary cat-and-mouse games with terrorists, who
are trained to thwart surveillance. While particular examples of the use of multiple-point
wiretaps pursuant to section 206 remain classified, the following hypothetical illustrates the
utility of this authority.
Suppose, for example, that investigators become aware of an al Qaeda plot to launch a
bomb attack. Investigators also discover a recent cellular telephone number for the suspected
bomber, for which they immediately obtain a FISA surveillance order. When they attempt to
begin surveillance of the suspect, however, they discover that he has changed cellular telephone
numbers and providers in order to thwart surveillance. Because of section 206, in cases where
the subject’s actions may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a service provider,
investigators can now obtain a FISA multiple-point surveillance order and immediately serve it
on the suspected bomber’s new cellular provider, allowing undercover agents to monitor his new
-22-