Newcomb’s holding should not have applied to the facts of Thompson, which (like the present case) involved a mother recording a conversation between her minor children and their father. 8 . This footnote in Thompson is instructive because alleged violations of Title III involving one spouse intercepting a conversation of another spouse would most frequently occur in a manner similar to that which occurred in this case — a recording device attached to a home telephone extension. Although mentioned by the Tenth Circuit, the Extension Phone Exemption was not raised or discussed by the district court on remand. See Thompson v. Dulaney, 838 F.Supp. 1535 (D.Utah 1993). 9 . The Court notes contrary authority from other circuits. See United States v. Murdock, 63 F.3d 1391, 1394, (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (listing Tenth Circuit as circuit reaching
holding that mechanism used in that case  a tape recorder connected to extension phones in home  did not qualify for the  25105a extension phone exemption holding that spying on ones spouse does not constitute use of an extension phone in the ordinary course of business for purposes of title iii holding outside context of recording of a minor childs phone conversations that a telephone extension used without authorization or consent to surreptitiously record a private telephone conversation is not used in the ordinary course of business  holding that use of a pretext phone call did not qualify for protection because the technique is generally known to the public holding that the mere passive extension of credit does not constitute any form of reliance