MOST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS REGARD WIRETAPPING AS AN ESSENTIAL INSTRUMENT FOR CONTROLLING ORGANIZED CRIME. TITLE III OF THE STATE STREETS ACT DISCOURAGES ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING, WHILE STRUCTURING A WARRANT PROCEDURE TO PERMIT ITS USE AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HOWEVER, REPORTS THAT THE PROVISION FOR WIRETAPPING OF ORGANIZED CRIME FIGURES HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY MAJOR CONVICTIONS OF SUCH PERSONS. WIRETAP SUPPORTERS RESPOND THAT ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IS BUT A PART, ALBEIT AN ESSENTIAL ONE, OF LENGTHY AND COMPLEX CASE DEVELOPMENT AGAINST HIGHER UPS IN THE ORGANIZED CRIME PYRAMID. BY INTERDICTING CONVERSATION ABOUT ONGOING CRIMES, AGENTS CAN PIECE TOGETHER AN OTHERWISE SECRET ORGANIZATION IMPENETRABLE BY INFORMERS. ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING IS MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN USED IN NARCOTIC AND GAMBLING CASES, WHERE STRONG ORGANIZATIONAL SECURITY IS MAINTAINED BY THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRATORS. IN TERMS OF CONVICTION RATES, IT IS PROBABLY NOT AS COST EFFECTIVE AGAINST OTHER CRIMES, PARTICULARLY THOSE NOT INVOLVING 'PYRAMID' STRUCTURES. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IS ALSO EFFECTIVE AS AN INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING TOOL, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE SO USED UNTIL PROBABLE CAUSE IS OBTAINED. THERE IS A SERIOUS PRICE TO PAY, HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF PRIVACY AND PUBLIC COSTS. THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES OF A CONTINUOUS NATURE WOULD DO BETTER TO USE OTHER INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES, BOTH FOR THE SAKE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND COSTS TO THE TAXPAYERS. (RCB)