Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05068/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Q. Day
Appellee
Nancy J. Ingle
Appellee
Jean A. Mackey
Appellee
Brent K. Newcomb
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

Unit.ed States Court of Appealn Tent.'1 Circuit 

AUG 2 8 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk . 

BRENT K. NEWCOMB, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NANCY J. INGLE, Individually and as 

Assistant County Attorney of the 

County of Crawford, State of Kansas; 

JEAN A. MACKEY; HOWARD Q. DAY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-5068 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 88-C-635-E) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Brent K. Newcomb, pro se. 

Frederick R. Smith, Pittsburg, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellee 

Nancy J. Ingle. 

Vernon D. Grassie, Girard, Kansas, for Defendants-Appellees 

Jean A. Mackey and Howard Q. Day. 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John L. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Kane, Senior District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 1 
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff Brent Newcomb appeals from an order of the district 

court granting defendants' motions for summary judgment. 1 

Defendant Jean A. Mackey, with the help of her father, 

defendant Howard Q. Day, intercepted and recorded telephone 

conversations of her minor son Brent, within her own home without 

Brent's knowledge or consent. Brent's parents were divorced at 

the time, and Mackey had custody of Brent and his younger brother. 

In one instance, Mackey recorded a conversation in which 

Brent's father, Harold Newcomb (Newcomb), instructed Brent and his 

brother as they set fire to their home. Thereafter, Mackey told a 

fire investigator of the existence of the tapes. After the tapes 

were recovered, Mackey sent them to defendant Nancy Ingle, an 

assistant county attorney. Based on the recorded conversation, 

Ingle brought criminal charges against Newcomb resulting in a 

conviction. In juvenile court, Newcomb stipulated to the 

severance of his parental rights. All charges against Brent were 

dismissed after Newcomb and Mackey stipulated to the designation 

of Brent and his brother as children in need of care. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 2 
Upon reaching majority, Brent brought this suit alleging 

violations of 18 u.s.c. §§ 2510-2520, 42 u.s.c. § 1983, and the 

first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments. Brent 

alleged that Ingle intercepted conversations between him and 

Newcomb, unlawfully arrested him, denied him counsel, forced him 

to sign away his rights, and incarcerated him. Brent also alleged 

that Mackey and Day unlawfully installed the wiretap device; 

disclosed the contents of Brent's conversations with Newcomb to 

friends and relatives; and, on the day of the fire, intercepted 

the conversation "for the purpose of commiting (sic) criminal or 

tortuious (sic) act." Rec. Vol. I., No. 1 at 10. 

Defendants filed motions for summary judgment which the 

district court granted. ·The court held that Brent had failed to 

prove any causal connection between the recordings and his alleged 

injury: "What happened to you was brought about because of the 

actions that you and your brother took, that was the source of 

your problem or any damage that occurred to you, not the fact that 

your mother recorded those conversations." Rec. Supp. Vol. I at 

38. The court found "that reasonable men and women could not 

differ, that there is totally lacking the willfulness of 

intentional wrongdoing or reckless disregard of known legal duty 

that is a requisite to the willfully component of Section 2511 of 

Title 18." Id. at 40. The court held that Ingle had acted at all 

times within the confines of her official duties and did not in 

any way act in a malicious manner. Therefore, Ingle was entitled 

to qualified immunity. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 3 
The issue here is whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime 

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 u.s.c. §§ 2510-2520, 

applies in a situation such as this where a minor child sues his 

custodial parent for telephone interceptions made within the 

family home. Title III makes it unlawful for any person to 

"willfully intercept[], endeavor(] to intercept, or procure(] any 

other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire or 

oral communication." 18 u.s.c. § 2511(1)(a). 2 A civil cause of 

action is provided by 18 u.s.c. § 2520. 

No cases address the situation we have here. The closest 

analogy is where spouses have tapped one another, 3 but that is 

still qualitatively different from a custodial parent tapping a 

minor child's conversations within the family home. 

We hold that the interception at issue here is not reached by 

Title III. The interception of a family member's telephone 

conversations by use of an extension phone in the family home is 

arguably permitted by a broad reading of the exemption contained 

in 18 u.s.c. § 2510(5)(a)(i). 4 There is no persuasive reason why 

2 The statute has since been amended to substitute the word 

"intentionally" for the word "willfully." We proceed under the 

statute as in effect at the time of the alleged violation. 

3 The circuits are split on this issue. Compare Anonymous v. 

Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir. 1977); Simpson v. Simpson, 490 

F.2d 803 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 897 (1974); with Kempf 

v. Kempf, 868 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1989); Pritchard v. Pritchard, 

732 F.2d 372 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661 

(6th Cir. 1976). 

4 18 u.s.c. § 2510(5)(a)(i) provides that: 

"electronic, mechanical, or other device" means any 

device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a 

wire, oral, or electronic communication other than--

(continued on next page) 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 4 
Congress would exempt a business extension and not one in the 

home. The difference between listening on the extension and 

tapping the line within the home in the context here is not 

material. "[W]e think the (5)(a)(i) exemption is indicative of 

Congress's intention to abjure from deciding a very intimate 

question of familial relations, that of the extent of privacy 

family members may expect within the home vis--a--vis each other." 

Simpson, 490 F.2d at 809. 5 Further, because no violation of Title 

III by Mackey is present, no violation by Day or Ingle can be 

established. 

Brent's allegations against Ingle under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 do 

not support a holding of liability under that section. Although 

(continued from previous page) 

(a) any telephone or telegraph instrument, 

equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) 

furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of 

wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary 

course of its business and being used by the subscriber 

or user in the ordinary course of its business or 

furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to 

the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary 

course of its business; .... 

5 While comments made during the legislative process are not in 

any sense controlling, nevertheless our holding above is 

reflective of what appears to be the general understanding of 

those involved in the legislative process regarding the scope of 

the statute in situations such as that present here. See. e.g., 

Anonymous, 558 F.2d at 679 (quoting from the Hearings on the 

Anti-Crime Program Before Subcomm. No. 5 of the House Judiciary 

Comm., 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 901 (1967): "I take it nobody wants 

to make it a crime for a father to listen in on his teenage 

daughter or some such related problem." Comment by Professor 

Herman Schwartz testifying for the A.C.L.U.). 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 5 
unclear, it appears from Brent's complaint that he is complaining 

about Ingle's decision not to prosecute him after charges had been 

filed. Brent does not dispute Ingle's assertions that because of 

his parents' stipulations the tapes were not used in any juvenile 

court proceedings. Ingle decided not to prosecute Brent and all 

charges were dropped as a result of the stipulations. Ingle is 

entitled to absolute immunity from liability on that decision. 

See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1532 (10th Cir. 1988). Ingle 

is also entitled to absolute immunity for her actions taken prior 

to deciding not to prosecute, such as reviewing and evaluating the 

tapes. See Id. 

Likewise, no action under section 1983 lies against Mackey 

and Day. 

[I]n order to hold a private individual liable under 

§ 1983, it must be shown that the private person was 

jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged 

action, or has obtained significant aid from state 

officials, or that the private individual's conduct is 

in some other way chargeable to the State. 

Lee v. Town of Estes Park, 820 F.2d 1112, 1114 (10th Cir. 1987). 

No such showing has been made here. Mackey and Day's action in 

installing the wiretap and Mackey's actions in recording the 

conversations were taken without the knowledge or aide of any 

state actor. 

Brent alleged violations of the first, fourth, fifth, and 

sixth amendments. Construing Brent's complaint liberally, see 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Brent has failed to 

state a claim regarding any alleged constitutional violations 

under the facts presented. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 6 
( 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-5068 Document: 01019762422 Date Filed: 08/28/1991 Page: 7