Agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration conducted 11,681 electronic intercepts in 2014, according to information obtained by USA Today. That's up from 3,394 in 2005. And over the course of those nine years, federal agents increasingly went to state judges to get warrants for wiretaps, bypassing the more rigorous federal procedure for obtaining warrants.

The DEA attributed the increased use of wiretaps to a corresponding increase in the types of devices and methods that drug traffickers use to communicate. Some of the wiretap orders “could be counted more than once, if they include the collection of both voice calls and text messages, for example,” USA Today wrote.

But beyond the simple increase in the number of intercepts that the DEA conducted, it seems that the agency is bypassing more stringent federal rules for getting wiretap approval. The wiretap counts show that in 2005, there were twice as many intercepts approved by federal courts as there were intercepts approved by state courts. In 2009 there were about as many intercepts approved by federal courts as there were intercepts approved by state courts. And in 2012, the number of intercepts approved by state courts began definitively surpassing those approved by federal courts.

Although state wiretap laws “must include all of the safeguards federal law requires,” getting approval to go ahead with the wiretap is generally easier if the DEA makes its case to a state court. USA Today explains: “Federal law requires approval from a senior Justice Department official before agents can even ask a federal court for permission to conduct one. The law imposes no such restriction on state court wiretaps, even when they are sought by federal agents.”

Update: In a statement e-mailed to Ars by the DEA, Special Agent Joseph Moses wrote:

There are many reasons why state wire intercepts might be conducted during the course of a DEA investigation. One trend over the years is wider, growing recognition by state and local prosecutors of the value of evidence obtained from wire intercepts generally, and a corresponding increase in their willingness to move forward with these applications. This dynamic, coupled with an increase in the number of states that have passed laws allowing for intercepts, has contributed to the rising numbers you note. Furthermore, since DEA offices often support task forces staffed by large numbers of state and local officers, close relationships with the state or local prosecutors who would pursue these wiretaps routinely develop. It is also common for investigations to start at the state or local level and engage federal resources as they grow in complexity and jurisdictional reach, but remain under the control of state or local prosecutors who continue to deploy investigative tools, including wire intercepts. Closely related to this is the development of state laws that may reflect with greater currency the evolving needs of law enforcement in light of technical advances in communications. Given their more recent vintage, these state laws may be more tailored or geared to intercepting particular technologies than is 18 United States Code 2510 et. seq., which was originally passed in 1968 and may trail technology to a greater extent.

The Drug Enforcement Agency is one of the primary initiators of wiretaps in the US, and earlier this year it was revealed that the DEA and the US Army likely bought millions of dollars of remote access software in recent years to plant on suspects' devices. The agency has also purchased phone records and Amtrak itinerary data in an effort to keep tabs on suspected drug dealers.