## Facts

- William Allan Jones and his wife lived in a residence owned by Jones’s grandmother; the telephone line was listed in Jones’s name.
- The couple separated in July 1974 and did not resume living together as spouses.
- Jones filed for divorce in September 1974; a state court restraining order later barred him from “coming about” his wife; the divorce decree entered in January 1975.
- During the estrangement, Jones allegedly installed a device to intercept his wife’s telephone conversations; the government asserted interceptions occurred on one or more occasions outside the curtilage of the residence.
- A federal grand jury charged Jones with unlawfully intercepting wire communications and unlawfully using the contents of intercepted wire communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) and (d).
- Jones claimed an implied “interspousal” or “marital home” exception to Title III barred prosecution for his alleged conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by dismissing the indictment before trial based on facts developed outside the indictment (via a bill of particulars and affidavit), thereby resolving matters tied to guilt or innocence.
2. Whether Title III contains an implied interspousal (or marital home) exception allowing a spouse to intercept the other spouse’s wire communications without violating 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1).

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The district court improperly dismissed the indictment pretrial by considering extra-indictment facts and effectively deciding the merits on a Rule 12 motion.
- Title III contains no implied interspousal or marital home exception; the statute’s prohibitions apply to unauthorized spousal interceptions.

## Legal Principles

- A pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment may test the indictment’s legal sufficiency, but it may not be used to decide factual defenses or to try the “general issue” of guilt or innocence.
- An indictment is generally sufficient if it alleges the elements of the charged offense in a plain, concise manner and substantially tracks the statutory language.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1), “any person” is prohibited from intentionally intercepting wire communications and from using or disclosing their contents when unlawfully obtained, subject only to expressly enumerated statutory exceptions.
- Courts should not infer additional exceptions to Title III—such as an interspousal exception—where Congress provided specific exceptions and did not include marriage-based immunity.
- Title III protects privacy against unauthorized interception by private parties as well as governmental actors; marital status does not categorically reduce those protections.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the indictment should not have been dismissed on a pretrial motion that depended on resolving merits-related facts, and it rejected a judicially created interspousal exception to Title III, allowing the prosecution for alleged wire interceptions and use of intercepted contents to proceed.


United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1976)