Connection lost
Server error
UNITED STATES v. AULER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A telephone company monitored a customer suspected of using a “blue box” to make fraudulent calls. The court upheld the customer’s wire fraud conviction, ruling that evidence from the company’s limited, self-protective surveillance was admissible even though the company’s overall monitoring was excessively broad.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that a common carrier’s statutory authority to intercept communications to protect its property allows for the admission of evidence lawfully obtained and disclosed, even if the carrier’s surveillance was partially excessive, so long as the illegally obtained portions are not disclosed to law enforcement.
UNITED STATES v. AULER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Raymond Auler was suspected of using a “blue box” device to bypass billing equipment and make fraudulent long-distance telephone calls. General Telephone Company, his service provider, initiated surveillance on his lines. The company first attached a 2600 cycle detector, which indicated the use of a blue box. Subsequently, it installed magnetic tape recorders that monitored and recorded all of Auler’s calls—both legal and illegal—for approximately two weeks. The company’s surveillance was more extensive than necessary to protect its property. However, General Telephone provided the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with only edited tape recordings containing the multifrequency tones, dialing signals, and initial salutations of the fraudulent calls. Based on this limited information, the FBI obtained a search warrant for Auler’s residence. Just before executing the warrant, a telephone company employee accompanying the FBI agent confirmed that Auler was actively using the blue box. The search uncovered the device. Auler was convicted of wire fraud and sought to suppress the evidence, arguing the surveillance violated federal wiretapping statutes and the Fourth Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is evidence obtained by a telephone company through surveillance admissible when the surveillance was conducted to protect the company’s property, but was broader than necessary, and only the lawfully intercepted portions were disclosed to law enforcement?
Yes, the evidence is admissible. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is evidence obtained by a telephone company through surveillance admissible when the surveillance was conducted to protect the company’s property, but was broader than necessary, and only the lawfully intercepted portions were disclosed to law enforcement?
Conclusion
This case establishes that lawfully intercepted evidence under the § 2511(2)(a)(i) property Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
Legal Rule
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(i), a communication common carrier may intercept and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the interplay between the general prohibition on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qui
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A telephone company may monitor calls to protect its property from