essential elements of the Extension Phone Exemption). The parties did not brief the issue of whether the “intercepting equipment” used by Mother qualifies for the Extension Phone Exemption, leading the Court to believe it is undisputed that this element of the Extension Phone Exemption is met. Nonetheless, the Court will briefly address it. Father alleges that Mother “set up a recording device on her own telephone arid intercepted the conversations.” (Comply 16.) The Tenth Circuit has held that a recording device attached to a home telephone extension, such as that alleged in this case, qualifies for the Extension Phone Exemption because it is the telephone receiver, and not the recording device, that constitutes the intercepting mechanism. See United States v. Harpel 91 (E.D.Ark.1998) (<HOLDING>). In Scheib, which presented a factual scenario
holding that a juvenile questioned by an officer over the phone was not in custody holding sufficient location information given even in the absence of witnesss phone number holding that the extension phone exemption applied to situations where a parent records his childs phone conversations from a phone extension within the parents home without any analysis of the recording partys purpose holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone holding that while law enforcement officers properly separated and assumed possession of a cell phone from arrestees person during the search incident to arrest a warrant was required before the information data and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement