Trotter writes:

Thanks to Mike Godwin for forwarding the announcement about the Clipper chip stuff. I am not a Constitutional law person or criminal preceedure person, but if I understand this proposal correctly, it does not require a member of the judiciary to be involved.

Not at the key-escrow phase, no. But you have to have a valid search warrant or authorization order in hand before you can go to the escrow agencies and request the partial keys. Here's the relevant language:

...

ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKES KEY ESCROW ENCRYPTION ANNOUNCEMENTS

When an authorized government agency encounters suspected key- escrow encryption, a written request will have to be submitted to the two escrow agents. The request will, among other things, have to identify the responsible agency and the individuals involved; certify that the agency is involved in a lawfully authorized ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ wiretap; specify the wiretap's source of authorization and its ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ duration; and specify the serial number of the key-escrow encryption chip being used. In every case, an attorney involved in the investigation will have to provide the escrow agents assurance that a validly authorized wiretap is being conducted.

The reason that Reno doesn't just say "a court-ordered wiretap" is that there are some emergency circumstances under which wiretap authorization can be gotten in advance of approval by a neutral magistrate. Both the Wiretap Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act make provisions for such emergencies. Eventually, such emergency wiretaps do have to be reviewed by a magistrate, however. In the Wiretap Act, and, I believe, in FISA, the time limit is 48 hours. --Mike