Court Opinion

ID: 9462906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:53:14.006603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:50.695932
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree with the majority’s holding that the district court possessed the power to order installation of a “pen register.” However, I cannot agree that it was an abuse of discretion to require the Telephone Company to assist in installing it. On the contrary, a direction that the Telephone Company render assistance was obviously essential to implement the court’s pen register order since otherwise that order would amount to nothing more than an empty gesture. The assistance order was therefore well within the district court’s discretionary authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and no further specification of authority by Congress was required. Accordingly, I would affirm.
Judge Medina’s opinion starts out on a satisfactory enough note by correctly concluding that the district court had jurisdiction to authorize installation of the pen register by federal agents upon a showing of probable cause. See United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 553-54, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring and dissenting); United States v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 531 F.2d 809, 812-13 (7th Cir. 1976). The majority then assumes (without expressly deciding) that the All Writs Act provides the court with, such authority as it needs to require Telephone Company assistance. In my view this assumption also is clearly correct.
The All Writs Act provides that “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of. law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Although the Act does not itself furnish jurisdiction, see e. g., Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111 (1906), it does authorize the court in proper cases to issue auxiliary orders necessary to render effective its exercise of. jurisdiction otherwise obtained. “[A] federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in the performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it.” Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 273, 63 S.Ct. 236, 239, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942). See Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152, 157 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 945, 92 S.Ct. 2044, 32 L.Ed.2d 332 (1972) (“[Ojnce jurisdiction has attached, powers under § 1651(a) should be broadly construed.”) The power conferred by the Act extends to issuing injunctions and other writs against persons who, though not parties to the original action, may thwart the effectuation of the court’s decision. See Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 273 F.Supp. 1, 6 (E.D. Mo.1967), aff’d mem., 389 U.S. 579, 88 S.Ct. 692, 19 L.Ed.2d 779 (1968).
It is true that, until the recent decision of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., supra, the authority granted by the All Writs Act was apparently- never used to issue orders auxiliary to a search warrant. But such an order is no more novel than others issued *964under the Act, which have been upheld when needed to implement a court’s decisions. See, e. g., Board of Education v. York, 429 F.2d 66 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954, 91 S.Ct. 968, 28 L.Ed.2d 237 (1971) (order requiring parents to send son to particular school to further desegregation plan); Application of President & Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., 331 F.2d 1000 (D.C.Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 331 F.2d 1010, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 978, 84 S.Ct. 1883,12 L.Ed.2d 746 (1964) (one-judge order requiring blood transfusion); United States v. Field, 193 F.2d 92, 95-96 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 894, 74 S.Ct. 202, 96 L.Ed. 670 (1951) (order requiring bail committee members to answer questions regarding fleeing defendants).
Once we agree that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a pen register order and authority under the All Writs Act to direct third parties to render such assistance as is reasonably necessary to implement its exercise of jurisdiction, I find it impossible on this record to accept the majority’s conclusion that it was an abuse of discretion to direct that such assistance be rendered in this case. As the majority opinion notes, the assistance of the Telephone Company was here necessary for the installation of the pen register; due to the physical peculiarities of the location to be put under surveillance it would have been difficult if not impossible, for the agents to install the device on their own without detection. Furthermore, the Telephone Company concedes that the assistance required of it was not burdensome; all that was required was the provision of certain plans and the flicking of a switch at a central terminal. Finally, the intrusion into the privacy of the targets of the surveillance and their communicants was less than would occur had the government sought authorization of a Title III wiretap; only the destination, not the content, of telephone messages was to be monitored.1 It is the function of the district court to weigh such considerations when exercising its discretion, and in this case the balance clearly points toward requiring Telephone Company assistance.
Despite the compelling case made out here for exercise of discretion in favor of the assistance order, the majority has concluded that the district court’s action represented an abuse of discretion. None of the reasons offered in support of that conclusion, however, can withstand scrutiny. First it is suggested that the 1970 amendment of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq., following the decision in Application of United States, 427 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1970), represented implicit Congressional approval of the Ninth Circuit’s view that a court does not have power under the All Writs Act or otherwise, to require Telephone Company assistance in electronic surveillance.2 The Supreme Court has, however, long cautioned against drawing the inference that an express Congressional grant of authority to an agency necessarily implies that the agency previously lacked such authority. As Justice Jackson wrote in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 47, 70 S.Ct. 445, 453, 94 L.Ed. 616 (1950), “we will not draw the inference . . . that an agency admits that it is acting upon a wrong construction by seeking ratification from Congress. Public policy requires that agencies feel free to ask legislation which will terminate or avoid adverse contentions and litiga*965tions.” See FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 608-12, 86 S.Ct. 1738, 16 L.Ed.2d 802 (1966) (FTC requests for specific authority to seek injunctions against mergers, even if granted, would not imply such power was lacking under the All Writs Act). Thus, it is impossible to conclude that because Congress acted to provide express authority to the courts to require Telephone Company assistance in installing Title III wiretaps, similar express authorization is required to issue the present order involving a pen register which both parties agree is wholly outside the ambit of Title III. Although Congressional clarification of the court’s power to order Telephone Company assistance in the installation of pen registers would place the matter beyond argument, it is wholly unnecessary to impose this burden upon Congress. The district court clearly possesses the authority under the All Writs Act.
The majority next concludes that, although an assistance order may be desirable in the circumstances of the present case, it would be the first step down a slippery slope in which law enforcement agents would obtain judicial orders requiring progressively more assistance from third parties in furtherance of government investigations. Here I must respectfully disagree. To hold that the district court acted properly within the scope of its powers in the present case would not write a carte blanche for any and all orders which law enforcement agencies might seek in the future. While the powers conferred by the All Writs Act are broad, they are to be reserved for cases of clear necessity, as this court has frequently observed in passing upon demands that it exercise its power under the Act to issue mandamus to district courts. See, e. g., United States v. Weinstein, 511 F.2d 622, 626 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2655, 45 L.Ed.2d 693 (1975); United States v. Dooling, 406 F.2d 192,198 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1744, 23 L.Ed.2d 224 (1969); Electric & Musical Industries Ltd. v. Walsh, 249 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1957). We have had sufficient confidence in our district judges over the past century to vest them with discretionary power to issue such extraordinary relief as temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. I see no reason for not trusting them to employ sensible standards in deciding whether auxiliary relief should be granted under the All Writs Act. Because of the combination of clear necessity for Telephone Company assistance and the minimal burdens on that company, this is a case where application of such standards mandates assistance from the Telephone Company. Were the necessity lesser, or the burden greater, in some future case, a district court might not be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers. That is what exercise of discretion is all about. I see no reason to assume that the district courts will in the future gránt law enforcement agencies such relief on anything less than a showing of the compelling nature here made, or that, in reviewing such orders, future panels of this court will be any less sensitive than the present majority to the problems involved.
Nor can I agree with the majority that Congress, as distinguished from federal courts, is in a better position to define the conditions under which assistance by third parties may be ordered or the scope of that assistance. Surely it did not do so in its 1970 amendment of Title III3 and no necessity for doing so in the present case has been shown. Aside from the obvious need for minimal help from the Telephone Company in the present case, there is no basis for believing that the government will need, much less demand, other types of assistance in the investigation of other types of crimes. In any event, since the terms, conditions and limits of such assistance would vary according to the circumstances of each particular case, the subject is better suited to judicial exercise of discretion under the All Writs Act than to a precise or detailed statutory blueprint. In *966short the majority, ignoring the principle that “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,”4 paints imaginary and unlikely devils on the wall. However, should these devils ever appear in real life, I am confident that the district courts’ sound exercise of discretionary power would be more than sufficient to deal with them.

. It is possible that the result of holding that the Telephone Company cannot be required to give assistance in the installation of a pen register may be, paradoxically, to increase the amount of electronic surveillance. Since the Telephone Company can be required under the 1970 amendment to Title III, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4), to provide assistance in installing a Title III wiretap, law enforcement agents may be compelled to seek such wiretap authority in order to receive Telephone Company assistance, even if their primary interest lies simply in determining the locations to which calls are placed rather than in the monitoring of content which the wiretap would permit.

. The majority’s view of the Congressional intent behind the 1970 amendment can find no support in the meager legislative history of the amendment, which was approved as a rider to the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970.

. The 1970 amendment simply and broadly authorizes courts to require communications carriers to provide “all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary” in installing Title III wiretaps. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4).

. New Testament: Matthew, vi, 34.