United States v. Maurice Clouston, 623 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Maurice Clouston, 623 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bray v. Planned Parenthood Columbia-Willamette Inc. (ca6, 2014-03-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#16 18 U.S.C. § 3105 cited 2× in this case · 122 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bray v. Planned Parenthood Columbia-Willamette Inc.
6th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
For example, in United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980), this circuit approved assistance by a telephone company’s employees in the execution of a warrant related to wiretapping, partly because the employees were present to aid in the identification of electronic devices covered by the warrant.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sampson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
E.D. Mich. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (C.A.6 1980) ...
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'DONNELL v. Brown
W.D. Mich. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Bills v. Aseltine, 52 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir.1995) (private security agent participated in search; “under certain circumstances, the presence of private citizens at a search will not be a constitutional violation, particularly when they are assisting the police”); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (telephone company employees present during police search in order to identify electronic equipment owned by their employer; “[i]t is clear that the telephone company employees were present on the premises in aid of the officers who were authorized to conduct a …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bellville v. Town of Northboro
1st Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d 697, 706 (6th Cir.1992) ("Police may constitutionally call upon private citizens to assist them, and where assistance is rendered in aid of a warrant ... the bounds of reasonableness have not been overstepped."); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (upholding search in which federal agents *33 brought telephone company employees with them on a search to identify stolen property).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Sbordone (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mass. · 1997 · confidence medium
See also United States v. Robertson, 21 F.3d 1030, 1032-1034 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 891 (1994); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486 (6th Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beal v. Bahan
D.N.H. · 1996 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir. 1980) (reversing district court's finding that presence of phone company employees rendered search unconstitutional where employees were present pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3105 in aid of officers authorized to search for electronic devices pursuant to search warrant). 13 It is evident from a review of the warrant in this case that it is quite broad.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Buonocore v. Harris (3×)
4th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 21 F.3d 1030, 1034 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 238 , 130 L.Ed.2d 161 (1994); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (per curiam); United States v. Schwimmer, 692 F.Supp. 119, 126-27 (E.D.N.Y.1988); see also Martin, 600 F.2d at 1182 (“under federal law a search warrant may be executed by (1) the person to whom the warrant is directed; (2) any officer authorized by law to execute such warrants; or (3) some other person aiding a person under (1) or (2) who is present and acting in the execution of the warrant.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Daniel G. Buonocore v. Donald L. Harris, Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and David R. Cundiff, Deputy Sheriff, Franklin County Sheriff's Department Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia James D. Thompson, Assistant Manager, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia Linda Sue Taylor United States of America, Daniel G. Buonocore v. David R. Cundiff, Deputy Sheriff, Franklin County Sheriff's Department, and Donald L. Harris, Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia James D. Thompson, Assistant Manager, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia Linda Sue Taylor United States of America (3×)
4th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 21 F.3d 1030, 1034 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 238 , 130 L.Ed.2d 161 (1994); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (per curiam ); United States v. Schwimmer, 692 F.Supp. 119, 126-27 (E.D.N.Y.1988); see also Martin, 600 F.2d at 1182 ("under federal law a search warrant may be executed by (1) the person to whom the warrant is directed; (2) any officer authorized by law to execute such warrants; or (3) some other person aiding a person under (1) or (2) who is present and acting in the execution of the warrant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tawa Ayeni v. James Mottola (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See United States v. Wright, 667 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486 (6th Cir.1980); United States v. Gervato, 474 F.2d 40, 45 (3d Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marcus L. Robertson
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See 18 U.S.C. § 3105 ; United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (per cu-riam) (holding that government agents properly seized telephone company property identified by assisting telephone company agents, even though warrant did not list telephone company property); United States v. Schwimmer, 692 F.Supp. 119, 124, 126-27 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (holding that government agents lawfully had computer expert help identify items that could be seized under warrant).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d at 706 (security guard not aiding in the search was not lawfully on premises); United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (telephone company employee can assist in search); In re Southeastern Equip.
cited Cited "see" Lorraine I. Bills v. Dennis W. Aseltine
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485 (6th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Schwimmer
E.D.N.Y · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
The assistance of this individual, however, was specifically permitted by the warrant pursuant to statutory authority. 18 U.S.C. § 3105 ; see United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485, 486-87 (6th Cir.1980) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Polk v. District of Columbia
D.D.C. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Clouston, 623 F.2d 485 (6th Cir.1980) (presence of employees of telephone company from which equipment had been stolen did not render warranted search unconstitutional where employees’ role was limited to identifying property stolen from their employer).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Maurice CLOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee
79-5423.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jun 30, 1980.
623 F.2d 485
James R. Williams, U. S. Atty., Steven R. Olah, Creed C. Black, Jr., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant., Allen Schulman, Jr., Canton, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Lively, Jones, Peck.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The government appeals from an order of the district court granting a motion to suppress evidence filed by the defendant-appel-lee Clouston. The defendant was indicted on five counts of manufacturing, assembling, possessing and selling electronic devices whose design rendered them primarily useful in surreptitious interception of wire communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(lXb). The business premises of the defendant-appellee were searched pursuant to a search warrant which the defendant-appellee admits was issued upon the basis of probable cause. The search warrant describes only the electronic devices as the objects of the search. However, the government agents who executed the warrant also seized telephone equipment which was found on the premises.

Prior to conducting the search the government agents requested two security officers of the telephone company to accompany them in the execution of the warrant in order to identify any property of the telephone company which might be found on the premises during the search. The government relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3105 as authority for requesting the telephone company employees to accompany the agents. That statute provides that a search warrant may be served by specified officers and by no other person “except in aid of the officer on his requiring it, he being present and acting in its execution.” One of the telephone company employees who accompanied the agents in the search testified that he was assigned to one of the agents and told to stay with him at all times while inside the business premises of the defendant-appellee and that his only role was to identify telephone company equipment.

The district court held that the presence of persons who were employees of the telephone company under the circumstances of this case rendered the entire search unconstitutional. The court then suppressed not only the telephone company equipment which was seized as stolen property but also suppressed the electronic devices described in the search warrant and which were seized by the government agents.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal together with briefs and oral arguments of counsel the court concludes that the district court erred in holding that the presence of the telephone company employees under the circumstances revealed by this record rendered the search unconstitutional. It is clear that the telephone company employees were present on the premises in aid of the officers who were authorized to conduct a search for electronic devices, that they were there at the request of the officers and that the officers were[*487] present and acting in execution of the warrant. We believe that 18 U.S.C. § 3105 was satisfied. It was testified that the telephone company employees, from experience, were able to identify equipment owned by their employer and that their role in the search was limited to identifying such property. It was reasonable to believe such equipment would be found in proximity to the electronic devices described in the search warrant but the agents did not have probable cause to include telephone equipment in the warrant. However, the telephone company property was in plain view and the Fourth Amendment requirement of “inadvertence” was satisfied. See United States v. Hare, 589 F.2d 1291 (6th Cir. 1979).

The order of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded for entry of an order denying the motion to suppress.