18 U.S.C. § 3105
Persons authorized to serve search warrant
A search warrant may in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction or by an officer authorized by law to serve such warrant, but by no other person, except in aid of the officer on his requiring it, he being present and acting in its execution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Wilson v. Layne
Wilson v. Layne (1999)
“[1] The clarity of the constitutional rule, a federal statute ( 18 U. S. C. § 3105 ), common-law decisions, and the testimony of the senior law enforcement officer all support my position that it has long been clearly established that officers may not bring third parties into…”
Tawa Ayeni v. James Mottola (1994)
“Though our rejection of Mottola’s immunity defense rests on well-established Fourth Amendment standards, we find some reenforcement for our conclusion in Federal statutory law, 18 U.S.C. § 3105 (1988), which specifies who may and who may not be on private premises in connection…”
United States v. Dale Robert Bach (2002)
“The district court found that the seizure of e-mails by Yahoo! personnel from Yahooi’s servers violated 18 U.S.C. § 3105 and sections 626.13 and 626A.”
Lorraine I. Bills v. Dennis W. Aseltine (1992)
“The district court suppressed all the fruits of the search — both the unlawful devices and telephone equipment — and this court reversed, relying primarily on 18 U.S.C. § 3105 , which provides that search warrants may be served by specified officers and by no other person…”
United States v. Arvle Edgar Medlin (1988)
“§ 3105 , which provides in part that “[a] search warrant may in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction or by an officer authorized by law to serve such warrant, but by no other person, except in aid of the officer on his requiring it, he being…”
United States v. Thomas W. Martin, III and Eva Joe Stancil (1979)
“This especially appears when 18 U.S.C.A. § 3105 is read alone with Rule 41.”
Wilson v. Layne (1998)
“3d at 358-59 , served only to explain why 18 U.S.C.A. § 3105 (West 1985) did not offer a defense to the officers.”
Commonwealth v. Sbordone (1997)
“1996) (“at least when such a person can be of assistance to the executing officers in determining the location or identity of the items to be seized, it is not objectionable that the officers. . . are accompanied during execution by a private person”).”
Buonocore v. Harris (1995)
“For this reason, the officers claim that Thompson’s presence in and search of Buonocore’s home was authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3105 (1988). Specifically, Harris and Cundiff assert that § 3105 establishes that “a federal law enforcement officer is authorized to bring with him [in…”
In Re Southeastern Equipment Co. Search Warrant (1990)
“18 U.S.C. § 3105 ; United States v. Martin, 600 F.”
Warner Bros. Inc., J. Joseph Bainton, Esquire v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., and Yun Yon Cho (1989)
“It is instructive to compare the seizure procedures followed in the instant case with those permitted under the Trademark Act, which, Bainton says, are “constitutionally indistinguishable.” The Trademark Act provides that seizures shall be effected by a “United States marshal or…”
United States v. Maurice Clouston (1980)
“The government relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3105 as authority for requesting the telephone company employees to accompany the agents.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.