Abuse of Power - A story about Alaska's Secret Wiretapping

The story of Alaska's wiretapping laws (and as you will see...unwritten laws) go back a few years. To be compliant with Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1284 ) , Alaska had to pass our own laws that were to the standard of Federal Law, or less restrictive on Alaskan's 4th amendment protections.

The Alaska Legislature passed Alaska Statute 12.37 in 1993 (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/statutes.asp#12.37.020), to become aligned with Federal Law.

Alaska Statute 12.37 is not used in Alaska, even though it is "codified" and the only law on the books that pertain to electronic communication interception warrants, it is constantly being circumvented by a court case in the 1970's , State v Glass ( http://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1978/3565-1.html )

A set of checks and balances were set up under Alaska Statute 12.37, to secure protections for Alaskan citizens as well as provide oversight into the implementation of electronic surveillance.

The first protection was to have electronic communications interception warrants to be issued by a Superior Court Judge, signed by the attorney general, or a person designated in writing or by law to act for the attorney.

The second protection was to have electronic communication interceptions be only for specific crimes, Murder, Kidnapping, Class A or Unclassified Felonies, Sex trafficking, or Human trafficking.

The third protection was to have "required reports" (AS 12.37.130(c) ) that list:
(1) the number of applications made under AS 12.37.010 - 12.37.130;
(2) the number of orders entered by the court;
(3) the effective period of time for which each interception was authorized;
(4) the number of, and duration of the authorized interception period specified in, any extension orders;
(5) the offenses in connection with which the communications were sought;
(6) the names and titles of the applicants;
(7) the number of indictments or other charges resulting from each application;
(8) the offenses that each indictment or other charge relates to; and
(9) the disposition of each indictment or other charge.

Many other protections are within Alaska Statute 12.37 as it pertains to what must happen before an electronic communications warrant can be issued. For example, a law enforcement official must show (quote from AS 12.37.030)"normal investigative procedures with respect to the offense have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be either unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous to employ", and others.

By now your probably wondering why your reading all of this is relevant... well that would be because Alaska doesn't use any of that...they instead use "Glass Warrants". A "Glass Warrant" is a fiction made up to circumvent all of the aforementioned protections for Alaskan's. None of the requirements stated above apply to a "Glass Warrant".

Glass Warrants can be for any reason, for any crime, issued by any judge, not signed by the Attorney General, and not required to have reports or oversight.

I challenge the reader to write and email to alan.birnbaum@alaska.gov and request AS 12.37.130 Required Reports for any year after 1993 (when enacted) and prove me wrong...you will not receive any. You can google search Department of Public Safety training manuals that will only talk of "Glass Warrants" when training officers on electronic communication interceptions.

I leave you with this...the law is fire...a beautiful servant but a scary master... our legislature is intended to make it a controlled burn.