WPCEK 9W/F$Ry4!vX+tװHQMn^&Zm&u#.,9Gft[|c UO[N䓼)\N3 ~F eS&l^/RSoW +j;K>R@'L;nZ­oS?yFkAAX[-fQJ-:${S$}vwj˂e%MRbhl!w1VMIC՞7궗E.$ 0vl$ 0`$ 0`B% 0`% 0`& 0`b& 08& 0& 02' 0' 0:( 0Y4) 0_) 0 ) 0j* 0`, B*- D/. D+=. 0h. D// 00 060 01 0:'2 0^a2 0<2 1e2U6`3U>3U*3 1u3 72s4 0N446669@@@@5BsCHP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2d$ !X4XXX    =:XXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular{0s fq06X?,}backup3|xTABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -   *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7L(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7&  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7K)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  $%&()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Zi)(O$  d$X4XXX  =:XXdd=    4    _Thedistrictcourtadoptedthemagistratejudgesreportand  recommendationswithoutcomment;therefore,fromthispoint  forward,wewillrefertothemagistratejudgesreportasthe \ districtcourtopinion.  d$X4XXX  =:XXdd=    3    _Section1983providesaprivaterightofactionagainst   [e]verypersonwho,undercolorof[law],subjects,orcausesto  besubjected,anycitizenoftheUnitedStatesorotherperson \ withinthejurisdictionthereoftothedeprivationofanyrights, 2 privileges,orimmunitiessecuredbytheConstitutionandlaws[of X theUnitedStates]42U.S.C.1983.  d$X4XXX  =:XXdd=    1    _Theaccountsofthepartiesdiffersharplyonthedetailsof  Minnis'searchofBellville'shomeoffice.SergeantLyverand  MinnisclaimthatLyverwasonlyoutsidefortentothirtyminutes \ andMinnisclaimsthatheremainedinthekitchenwithMrs. 2 Bellvilleduringthattime.Bellvilleclaimsthathisconversation X withSergeantLyverlastedthirtytofortyfiveminutesandthat . "MinnishadbeentakingapartcomputersthatIhad."Mrs.   BellvilleclaimsthatMinniswasaloneintheofficeforfortyfive   minutestoanhourandthat"everytenminutes[she]wouldgetup `  andwalkbybrieflytoseewhathewasdoing."Shefurtherclaims 6   thatshesawMinnis"goingthroughpaperwork,goingthrough[her]  \  husband'sfilecabinets,lookingthroughbooks,doingsomethingon  2  hiscomputer,accessingit,lookingatserialnumbersandturning   itoverandstufflikethat."Sincewemustviewthefactson   summaryjudgmentinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmoving d  party,wewillassumethatMinniswasaloneinthehomeofficefor :  onehour.WewillalsoacceptMrs.Bellville'sversionofMinnis' `  searchofthatoffice.  9 ' Moisakis0Moisakis .    + d$X4XXX  =:XXdd=    2    _Therecorddoesnotdisclosewhythecourtdismissedthe  criminalcharges. i d$X4XXX  =:XXdd=    5    _Article14oftheMassachusettsConstitutionissimilarbut  notidenticaltotheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStates  Constitution.Thestateprovisiondeclares: \ 8  Everysubjecthasarighttobesecurefromall X unreasonablesearches,andseizures,ofhisperson,his . houses,hispapers,andallhispossessions.All   warrants,therefore,arecontrarytothisright,ifthe   causeorfoundationofthembenotpreviouslysupported `  byoathoraffirmation;andiftheorderinthewarrant 6   toacivilofficer,tomakesearchinsuspectedplaces,  \  ortoarrestoneormoresuspectedpersons,ortoseize  2  theirproperty,benotaccompaniedwithaspecial   designationofthepersonsorobjectsofsearch,arrest,   orseizure:andnowarrantoughttobeissuedbutin d  cases,andwiththeformalitiesprescribedbythelaws.:    ЀTheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionstates: 6 8  Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,  houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonable h searchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated,andno > warrantsshallissue,butuponprobablecause,supported d byoathoraffirmation,andparticularlydescribingthe : placetobesearched,andthepersonsorthingstobe   seized. !X4XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X>BXXX4 "X X>B     OYрUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals I/ "  FortheFirstCircuit  H I/ X4X H  A') ` dE<` A   No.031519      `     h   @@(( ROBERTR._BELLVILLE_,TINA_BELLVILLE_,W.RONALD_SHILALE_,BEVERLY K  _SHILALE_,ANDLAMPREYASSOCIATES,INC., ! q @Plaintiffs,Appellants,    @tt)v. y  @P P TOWNOF_NORTHBORO_ԀANDWILLIAM_LYVER_,JR., %u  @Defendants,Appellees, !   3COMCORPORATION,D/B/A_STARTEK_,DOYLEBRADLEY_MINNIS_,ANDJOHN } POWERS, S 0  Defendants. O A') ` dE<` A    @@ ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICT  OFMASSACHUSETTS f [Hon.NathanielM.Gorton,U.S.DistrictJudge] b A') ` dE<` A  @'Before     @@((_Torruella_,CircuitJudge, y! _Cyr_,SeniorCircuitJudge, O " and_Lipez_,CircuitJudge. %!u# A') ` dE<"` A "!%       ScottS._Sinrich_,withwhomPhillips,Silver,_Talman_,_Aframe_, #' &_Sinrich_,P.C.wasonbrief,forAppellants. $(   _Deidre_ԀBrennanRegan,withwhomLeonardH._Kesten_and_Brody_, 8&!* _Hardoon_,Perkins&_Kesten_,_LLP_,wereonbrief,forAppellees. '^"+ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $   SI)n$. @38176@SJuly9,2004 )D%0  RHC*&1" @38176 @ R()n$2  (  * !  + '2? _    8:XXdd8*,X` XX* ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Onmultiplegrounds,the  plaintiffsinthissection1983caseseekdamagesfromatownand x oneofitspoliceofficersbecauseofasearchoftheiroffice,a $t home,andatruck,conductedaspartofapoliceinvestigationof   thetheftofelectronicmaterialsfromanelectronicsmanufacturing |  company.Thedistrictcourtadoptedwithoutcommentthemagistrate ( x  judgesreportandrecommendationtograntsummaryjudgmenttothe $  defendantsonallclaims.Onappeal,allbuttwoofthe   appellants'challengestothedistrictcourtrulingareeither ,|  waivedduetotheappellants'failuretoobjectproperlytothe ( magistratejudge'sreport,oraresolackinginmeritthatwecan  summarilyaffirmthedistrictcourtopinion. 0  ` Thetwoclaimsthatrequireourattentioninvolvetheuse , ofciviliansbythepolicetoexecuteasearchwarrant.The  districtcourtfoundthatthepoliceofficerinchargeofthe 4 search,SergeantWilliamLyver,Jr.,"violatedthePlaintiffs' 0 FourthAmendmentrighttoprivacybyfailingtoobtaintheclerk   magistrate'sapprovaltoutilizecivilian's[sic]inconductingthe 8!" searchesandbynotadequatelylimitingtheroleplayedbythe "4$ civiliansinthesearches."Despitethefindingofa $& constitutionalviolation,thedistrictcourtfoundthattheofficer <&!( wasentitledtoqualifiedimmunitybecausethelimitationson '8#* civilianinvolvementatthetimeoftheallegedviolationwerenot )$, clearlyestablished.Concludingthattherewasnoviolationofthe @+&. plaintiffs'FourthAmendmentrightsatall,weaffirmona  differentground. \   I.  X  ` Wedrawthefollowingrecitationoffactsfromthe   summaryjudgmentrecord.PlaintiffsRobertBellvilleandRon |  ShilalemanagedthemanufacturingdepartmentofStarTek,an ( x  electronicscompany,whenitwasacquiredbythe3ComCorporation $  in1993.3Comdecidedtooutsourceitsmanufacturingoperations   aftertheacquisitionandcontractedwithacompanycalledAxcess, ,|  Inc.tofindsubcontractors.Learningofthisdevelopment, ( BellvilleandShilaledecidedtoexploittheknowledgeand  expertisethattheyhaddevelopedatStarTekbystartingacompany 0 calledLampreyAssociatestoplacebidswithAxcessforthe3Com , contracts.Theywerestillemployedby3Comwhentheystarted  LampreyandweresubjecttoStarTek'snoncompete/nondisclosure 4 agreement,buttheyrecruitedengineersandcoworkerstoworkat 0 Lampreyafterhours.Thecompanyremainedinexistencefor   approximatelyoneyear,duringwhichtimeitmanufacturedcables 8!" andnetworkingequipmentfor3Comandothercompanies. "4$  ` OnJuly15,1994,a3ComemployeenamedSivanHem $& disclosedtheconnectionbetweenBellville,Shilale,andLampreyto <&!( companyofficialsandsaidthatBellvillehadstolencomputerchips '8#* andequipmentfrom3ComtouseatLamprey.Shealsosaidthathe )$, hadalteredinventoryrecordstocoverupthesethefts.Fourdays @+&. OY    later,3ComcontactedtheNorthboroughPoliceDepartmentregarding  Hemsallegations,andSergeantWilliamLyverbeganan \ investigation.BradMinnis,a3Comsecurityofficer,conducteda X parallelinternalinvestigation.    ` Shilalelearnedofthe3Cominvestigationwhenhe `  discoveredanoteabouttheinvestigationonacopyingmachineat  \  3ComandtoldBellvillethatthecompanysuspectedthemoftheft.   OnthemorningofJuly25,BellvillecalledJohnPowers,Director d  ofManufacturingfor3ComsStarTekdivision,anddeniedthe `  accusations.PowersspokewithMinnislaterthatmorningand   recountedhisconversationwithBellville.Minnisthencontacted h SergeantLyverforanupdateonthepoliceinvestigationandtold d himthatBellvillewasawareoftheinvestigation.   ` SergeantLyverobtainedwarrantstosearchBellvilles l homeandcar,andLampreysoffice,laterthatday.Hestatedin h thewarrantaffidavitthatheexpectedtofindthefollowingstolen  itemsduringthesearch:acopyingmachine,twistedpaircable p  analyzersandsimilardevices,proprietaryStarTek/3Com !l" documents,blackboxesforstoringcircuitboards,computerchips, "$ telephone/computerinterfacingequipment,electronicorpaper t$& records,proprietaryStarTektradeandmanufacturingtechnologies,  &p!( andatleastonepersonalcomputer.Sincehewasnotfamiliarwith '#* computersandelectronicequipmentandneededhelpidentifying3 x)$, Comproperty,SergeantLyveraskedPowersandMinnistoaccompany $+t&. himasheexecutedthewarrant.Thetownschiefofpolice  concurredwiththisdecision;however,Lyverdidnotgetpermission \ fromthestatemagistratetoincludetheciviliansinthesearch. X ThegroupsearchedLampreysofficeonJuly25andsearched   Bellville'shomeandtruckthenextday. `   ` PowersandMinnisactivelyassistedSergeantLyverwith  \  thesearchatLamprey'soffice.Theyopenedcabinetsanddrawers,   revieweddocuments,andidentified3Comproperty.Minnisalso d  searchedBellvilleshomeofficeandaccessedBellvilleshome `  computer.Hewasaloneforapproximatelyonehourduringthis   searchwhileSergeantLyverwasquestioningBellvilleoutside.a #  1      ׀ h Mrs.Bellvillewasinaroomadjacenttotheofficeand d occasionallylookedintocheckonMinnis.Lyverrecoveredalarge  amountofpropertythathebelievedtobestolenfrom3Comduring l thesesearches,includingproductschematics,customerlists,  cablesandothercomputercomponents.Hiscriminalinvestigation \ andthe3Cominternalinvestigationindicatedthatmuchofthis X materialhadindeedbelongedto3Com.SergeantLyverlaterturned   someoftheseizeditemsoverto3Com. `   ` BellvilleandShilalewerefiredfor grossmisconduct  \  onAugust1,1994,andagrandjuryindictedthemforlarcenyand   conspiracytocommitlarcenyinMarch1995.Theirwiveswerealso d  indictedforconspiracy.Thestatecourtlaterdismissedthe `  criminalchargesagainstallfour.f #  2          ` TheBellvillesandShilalesrespondedtothedismissals h byfilingcivilsuitsinstatecourtagainstSergeantLyver,the d TownofNorthborough,X4XX X4Minnis,Powers,and3Com.# X4XXX40#Thecomplaint  raisedsection1983,^< #  3      ׀MassachusettsCivilRightsAct( MCRA), l negligentorintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,andloss h ofconsortiumclaimsagainstLyverandNorthborough.Itraised  maliciousprosecution,MCRA,maliciousabuseofprocess,wrongful p  termination,tortiousinterferencewithcontract,Chapter93A(the !l" MassachusettsConsumerProtectionAct),intentionalinflictionof "$ emotionaldistress,conversion,lossofconsortium,andsection  1983claimsagainst3Comanditsemployees.Thedefendants \ removedthecasetotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe X DistrictofMassachusettsandmovedfordismissal.Thecourt   deniedthatmotion,andthepartiesinitiatedalongand `  contentiousdiscoveryperiod.  \   ` ThedefendantsfiledforsummaryjudgmentinJanuary   2002;thecourtreferredthatmotiontoMagistrateJudgeSwartwood d  forareportandrecommendation.OnFebruary24,2003,the `  magistratejudgeissuedameticulousfiftypagereportanalyzing   theappellantsnumerousclaimsandrecommendingthatthemotionbe h granted.Despitetheconstitutionalviolationfindingrelatingto d theinvolvementofciviliansinthesearches,herecommended  summaryjudgmentonalloftheappellants'section1983claims l becauseheconcludedthatSergeantLyverwasentitledtoqualified h immunity.Hisreportadvisedthepartiesthattheyhadtofile  writtenobjectionswhich"specificallyidentifytheportionofthe p  ...reporttowhichobjectionismadeandthebasisofsuch !l" objection"iftheywantedtoappealanyofhisrecommendationsor "$ conclusionstotheFirstCircuit.Aftertheappellantsobjected t$& withminimalspecificitytoportionsofthatreport,thedistrict  &p!( courtoverruledthoseobjections,adoptedthereport,andgranted '#*  summaryjudgmentonMarch26,2003. x)$,  ` TheBellvillesandShilalesappealedthejudgment   pertainingtoLyverandNorthborough;however,theydidnotappeal \ thejudgmentpertainingtothe3Comdefendants.Asnoted,wewill X onlydiscusstheappellants'claimsregardingSergeantLyver's   decisiontoincludeciviliansMinnisandPowersinthesearchof `  LampreyandoftheBellvilles'home.Totheextentthattheother  \  claimswerepreservedwithadequateobjectionstothemagistrate   judge'sreport,thedistrictcourt'sdecisiononthoseclaimsis d  summarilyaffirmed. `    II.    >  ` TheappellantsclaimthatSergeantLyverviolatedtheir  FourthAmendmentrightsby1)allowingMinnisandPowersto 0 participateinthesearcheswithoutpriorjudicialauthorization , and2)notadequatelysupervisingMinnisduringthesearchofthe  Bellvilles'home.Thedistrictcourtconcludedthatwhile 4  SergeantLyverviolatedthePlaintiffsFourthAmendmentrightto 0 privacybyfailingtoobtaintheclerkmagistratesapprovalto   utilizecivilians[sic]inconductingthesearchesandbynot 8!" adequatelylimitingtheroleplayedbytheciviliansinthe "4$ searches,hewasentitledtoimmunitybecausethatrightwasnot $& clearlyestablishedatthetimeofthesearch.] #  4      ׀Weaffirmthe <&!( districtcourtjudgment;however,wedosobasedonourconclusion  thattheappellantsfailedtoestablishaconstitutionalviolation. \  ` Normally,weendeavortoavoiddecidingconstitutional X issuesandattempttodecidecasesonthenarrowestgrounds   possible.Thatapproachisnotavailablehere.Inevaluatinga `  claimofqualifiedimmunity,theSupremeCourthastoldusthatwe  \  mustevaluatewhethertherewasaconstitutionalviolationbefore   weaddresstheotherelementsofaqualifiedimmunitydefense.See d  Saucierv.Katz,533U.S.194,201(2001)("Ifnoconstitutional `  rightwouldhavebeenviolatedweretheallegationsestablished,   thereisnonecessityforfurtherinquiriesconcerningqualified h immunity.");Wilsonv._jjLayne_jj,526U.S.603,609(1999)( Deciding d theconstitutionalquestionbeforeaddressingthequalified  immunityquestionalsopromotesclarityinthelegalstandardsfor l officialconduct,tothebenefitofboththeofficersandthe h generalpublic.").Therefore,wemustevaluatewhetherSergeant  Lyversinclusionofthe3Comofficialsinthesearchesledtoany p  FourthAmendmentviolations. !l"  A.TheDistrictCourtsAnalysis  "$  ` Thedistrictcourtreliedonadecisionofthe $& MassachusettsSupremeJudicialCourt(_jjSJC_jj),Commonwealthv. <&!( _jjSbordone_jj,678N.E.2d1184(Mass.1997),toconcludethatLyver '8#* violatedtheappellants'federalconstitutionalrights.In )$, Sbordone,thedefendant,adoctor,arguedthatthepoliceofficers' @+&. useofacivilianinvestigatorfromthestateinsurancefraud  officetoassistwithasearchofhisofficeviolatedhisrights \ underArticle14oftheMassachusettsConstitution.Accordingto X thecourt,theofficersclaimedthattheyrequiredthe   investigator'sassistancebecausetheydidnothavesufficient `  trainingtoconductthesearcheffectivelyandbecausethe  \  investigatorhadsignificantexperiencewithinsurancefraudin   generalandwiththedefendantinparticular.Id.at1186. d  Althoughthestatecourtorallyauthorizedtheinvestigator's `  presencewhenitissuedthesearchwarrant,itdidnotincludethat   authorizationinthewarrantitself.Theinvestigatorhelpedthe h officersbysortingthroughfilesthatwereclearlylabeledand d alphabetized.Thetroopersreviewedthefilesthatthe  investigatorremovedfromthedoctor'sfilingcabinetsbeforethey l wereseized. h  ` Afternotingthatthecasewasoneoffirstimpression,  andthatnothinginMassachusettsstatutoryorconstitutionallaw p  forbadethepolice"fromutilizingciviliansinappropriate !l" circumstanceswheresuchassistanceisnecessaryorwillmaterially "$ assistthepoliceinexecuting[the]warrant,"id.at1188 t$& (internalquotationmarksomitted),the_jjSJC_jjԀheldthatthe  &p!( investigator'sparticipationinthesearchviolatedthedefendant's '#* stateconstitutionalrightsbecausetheofficersdidnotexercise x)$, sufficientcontroloverhisparticipation.Thecourtreasonedthat $+t&. officersaretrainedtoconductsearcheswithoutviolatingstate  andfederallawandfacecivillitigationanddepartmental \ disciplineiftheyfailtodoso.Civiliansarenotsubjecttothe X samecontrols;therefore,thecourtheldthatofficershavean   obligationtoensurethatciviliansdonotexceedthelawfulbounds `  ofawarrantduringasearch.Itaddedthat"therequiredlevelof  \  supervisionvariesdependingonthecircumstances."Id.at1189.   Thecourtobservedthattheofficersdidnotactuallyrelyonthe d  investigator'sspecializedknowledgeduringthesearch.Instead, `  theysimplyusedhimtoconductthe"purelymechanicalexerciseof   retrievingclearlylabeledandalphabeticallystoredfilesbasedon h nameslisted[inthewarrant]."Id.at1189(internalquotation d marksomitted).Giventhecircumstances,the_jjSJC_jjԀheldthat"the  officersshouldhavelimited[theinvestigator's]roleinthe l searchtoremainingpresenttoassisttheofficerswithany h technicalquestionswhichmayhavearisenastheofficersexecuted  thewarrant,particularlywheretheofficershadascertainedthe p  alphabeticalfilingsystemandhadthecooperationofclinic !l" employees."Id.Thecourtalsonotedthatthe"betterpractice" "$ whenciviliansareincludedinsearchesistohavethewarrant t$& indicatethatthemagistratejudgepermittedthisinvolvement,id.  &p!( at1188n.9;however,itdidnotholdthatsuchpermissionwas '#*  constitutionallynecessary. x)$,  ` Thestates,ofcourse,arefreetoaccordtheircitizens   rightsbeyondthoseguaranteedbyfederallaw.See,e.g., \ Commonwealthv.Gonsalvez,711N.E.2d108,115(Mass.1999) X (holdingthatArticle14oftheMassachusettsConstitutiongives   driverstherighttobefreefromunjustifiedautomobilesearches `  eventhoughsuchrightsarenotguaranteedbytheFourth  \  Amendment);HonorableChiefJusticeHerbertP.Wilkins,Remarksof   ChiefJusticeHerbertP.WilkinstoStudentsatNewEnglandSchool d  ofLawonMarch27,1997,31NewEng.L.Rev.1205,1213(1997)("I `  thinkoftheSupremeCourtasdescribingacommonbasefromwhich   wecangoup.").g #  5      ׀Ashowingthatstatelawforbidsapracticemay h beinsufficienttodemonstratethatthepracticeviolatedthe  federalrightsthatareatissueinasection1983action.See, \ e.g.,Martinezv.CityofSchenectady,115F.3d111,116(2dCir. X 1997)("[T]hatthewarrantwasissuedincontraventionoftheNew   YorkStateConstitution...isanentirelydifferentquestion `  fromtheissuewhetheritwasobjectivelyreasonableforthe  \  officerstobelievetheywereviolatingclearlyestablishedfederal   rights.").Therefore,wemustevaluatethedistrictcourt's d  findingofafederalconstitutionalviolationinlightofother `  precedents.    B.ExecutingtheSearchWarrants  h  ` TheSupremeCourthasheldthattheFourthAmendment's 0 prohibitionofunreasonablesearchesandseizuresextendsnotonly , totheinitiationofsearchesbutalsotothemannerinwhich  searchesareconducted.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Ramirez,523 4 U.S.65,71(1998)("Thegeneraltouchstoneofreasonablenesswhich 0 governsFourthAmendmentanalysisgovernsthemethodofexecution   ofthewarrant.")(citationomitted);Daliav.UnitedStates,441 8!" U.S.238,257(1979)("[I]tisgenerallylefttothediscretionof "4$ theexecutingofficerstodeterminethedetailsofhowbestto $& proceedwiththeperformanceofasearchauthorizedbywarrant-- <&!( subjectofcoursetothegeneralFourthAmendmentprotection '8#* 'againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.'")(footnoteomitted). )$, SincetheappellantsarechallengingSergeantLyver'sexecutionof  thewarrantstosearchLamprey'sofficeandtheBellvilles'home \ withthehelpofcivilians,webeginouranalysisbyevaluating X whetherPowers'andMinnis'presenceduringthesearchwas   constitutionallyjustifiedatall,eventhoughtheappellantsdid `  notdirectlychallengetheirpresence.Wewillthenusethat  \  evaluationtohelpguidetherestofouranalysis.    C.ParticipationofLyverandMinnisintheSearches  d   ` Federalconstitutionallawdoesnotproscribetheuseof ,|  civiliansinsearches.Infact,Congresshasexplicitlyauthorized ( thepractice,see18U.S.C.3105("Asearchwarrantmayinall  casesbeservedbyanyoftheofficersmentionedinitsdirection 0 ...,butbynootherperson,exceptinaidoftheofficeronhis , requiringit,hebeingpresentandactinginitsexecution."),and  courtshaverepeatedlyupheldthepractice.See,e.g.,Billsv. 4 _jjAseltine_jj,958F.2d697,706(6thCir.1992)("Policemay 0 constitutionallycalluponprivatecitizenstoassistthem,and   whereassistanceisrenderedinaidofawarrant...thebounds 8!" ofreasonablenesshavenotbeenoverstepped.");UnitedStatesv. "4$ _jjClouston_jj,623F.2d485,48687(6thCir.1980)(upholdingsearchin $& whichfederalagentsbroughttelephonecompanyemployeeswiththem <&!( onasearchtoidentifystolenproperty).Courtshavearticulated '8#* guidelinesforevaluatingpoliceinvolvementofcitizensin )$, searchesundertheFourthAmendment'sreasonablenessstandard.The @+&. civilianmusthavebeenservingalegitimateinvestigative  function.Itisimpermissible,forexample,foracivilianto \ "ridealong"withofficersinfurtheranceofhisownprivate X interest.SeeWilson,526U.S.at61314(holdingthatofficers   violatedadefendant'sFourthAmendmentrightsbyinvitinganews `  crewalongonasearch);_jjBuonocore_jjv.Harris,65F.3d347,356(4th  \  Cir.1995)("[_jjW]e_jjԀhavenodoubtthattheFourthAmendmentprohibits   governmentagentsfromallowingasearchwarranttobeusedto d  facilitateaprivateindividual'sindependentsearchofanother's `  homeforitemsunrelatedtothosespecifiedinthewarrant.Sucha   searchisnot'reasonable.'");Bills,958F.2dat702(suppressing h evidencediscoveredbyasecurityguardwho"waspresent,notin d aidoftheofficersortheirmission,butforhisownpurposes  involvingtherecoveryof...propertynotmentionedinany l warrant").Also,theofficersmusthavesomedemonstrableneedfor h thepresenceofthecivilian.UnitedStatesv.Sparks,265F.3d  826,832(9thCir.2001)("Policecannotinviteciviliansto p  performsearchesonawhim;theremustbesomereasonwhyalaw !l" enforcementofficercannothimselfconductthesearchandsome "$ reasontobelievethatpostponingthesearchuntilanofficeris t$& availablemightraiseasafetyrisk.").  &p!(   ` TherecorddemonstratesthatSergeantLyverrequested '#* assistancefromPowersandMinnisbecausehefeltthathedidnot x)$, havethenecessarytechnicalexpertisetoconductthesearchonhis $+t&. ownandbecausehebelievedthatthe3Comofficialswouldbeable  tohelphimidentifytheitemsthatbelongedtothecompany.See \ Wilson,526U.S.at611-12("Wherethepoliceenterahomeunder X theauthorityofawarranttosearchforstolenproperty,the   presenceofthirdpartiesforthepurposeofidentifyingthestolen `  propertyhaslongbeenapprovedbythisCourtandourcommon-law  \  tradition.");Sparks,265F.3dat831("'Wherethecivilian   participatingintheexecutionofasearchwarrantisthevictimof d  atheftwhohasbeenrequestedbypolicetopointoutpropertythat `  hasbeenstolenfromthevictim,thecourtshaveunanimouslyheld   thatthecivilian'spresencedidnotaffecttheproprietyofthe h search.'")(quotingDianeSchmauderKane,CivilianParticipationin d ExecutionofSearchWarrantasAffectingLegalityofSearch,68  A.L.R.5th549,3(b)(1999)).ThereisnoindicationthatPowers l andMinnisparticipatedinthesearchestofurthertheirown h personalends,noristhereasuggestionintherecordthat  SergeantLyvercouldhavedelayedhissearchandobtainedthe p  necessarytechnicalassistancefromanotherofficer.Knowingthat !l" Bellvillehaduncoveredtheinvestigation,SergeantLyver "$ reasonablycouldhavesuspectedthatBellvillewouldhavedisposed t$& ofthe3Comequipmentifthesearchweredelayed.Accordingly,we  &p!( concludethatthecivilianparticipationinthesearcheswas '#* reasonable. x)$,   $+t&. D.LackofPriorJudicialApproval    ` Thedistrictcourtcitednoauthorityforitsconclusion x thatthefailuretoobtainpriorjudicialapprovalforcivilian $t assistanceviolatesfederalconstitutionallaw.Appellantsciteno   authorityonappeal.Wehavefoundnoneinourownresearch.In |  theabsenceofanyauthority,wewillnotimprovisearulethat ( x  seemsunnecessaryinlightoftheoverarchingrequirementthatthe $  useofciviliansintheexecutionofasearchmuststillmeetthe   constitutionalstandardofreasonableness.Withthatrequirement ,|  inmind,weechothe_jjSbordone_jjcourt'scautionarynotethatitmight ( bea"betterpractice,"ifcircumstancespermit,forlaw  enforcementofficerstodisclosetothemagistratethatcivilians 0 willbeinvolvedintheexecutionofthesearchandforthewarrant , toindicatethatthemagistratepermittedthisinvolvement.Such  civilianinvolvementiscertainlynotthenorm.Priordisclosure 4 andapprovalofthatinvolvementmightavoidthetypeofchallenges 0 wehaveinthiscase.    E.LackofSupervisioninBellville'sHomeOffice  8!"  ` TheappellantsalsoobjecttoSergeantLyver'sdecision #P$ toallowMinnistosearchBellville'shomeofficewhilehespoke $& withBellvilleoutside.Webeginouranalysisbynotingthat X&!( "[t]heFourthAmendmentdoesnotexplicitlyrequireofficial (T#* presenceduringawarrant'sexecution,thereforeitisnotan )%, automaticviolationifnoofficerispresentduringasearch." \+&. UnitedStatesv.Bach,310F.3d1063,1066-67(8thCir.2002).In  fact,insomecases,searchesconductedbytechnicalexperts \ outsideoftheviewoftheauthorizedpoliceofficercanactually X reducetheintrusiononthedefendant'sprivacy.See,e.g.,id.;   _jjRodrigues_jjv._jjFurtado_jj,575N.E.2d1124(Mass.1991)(concerninga `  searchofthedefendant'sbody).Therefore,welookatthe  \  specificcircumstancesofMinnis'searchofBellville'shomeoffice   toseewhetherthedegreeofsupervisionexercisedbySergeant d  Lyverwasunreasonable.SeeBellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520,559 `  (1979).    ` AlthoughthedetailsofMinnis'searcharesparse,Mrs. h Bellvilleclaimsthatshesawhim"X4XX X4goingthroughpaperwork,going d through[her]husband'sfilecabinets,lookingthroughbooks,doing  somethingonhiscomputer,accessingit,lookingatserialnumbers l andturningitoverandstufflikethat."# X4XXX4#ԀGiventhereasonfor h Minnis'presence(toidentifystolenitemsthatSergeantLyver  couldnot),thataccountdoesnotdescribeanythingthathewould p  nothavedoneifSergeantLyverhadbeenintheroomwithhim.He !l" wouldstillhavetakenthecomputersaparttoseewhethertheywere "$ stolenfrom3Com,andhewouldhavelookedatthepaperstosee t$& whethertheycontainedthe3ComtradesecretsthatSergeantLyver  &p!( suspectedBellvilleofstealing.UnlikethesituationinSbordone, '#* inwhichthecivilianengagedina"purelymechanical"exercise, x)$, Minnisreliedonhistechnicalexpertiseandfamiliaritywith3Com $+t&. propertyduringthissearch.SergeantLyvercouldnothave  supplantedhisroleifhehadbeenintheroomwithMinnis. \ Moreover,MinnisdidnotsearchBellville'shomebeyondtheoffice, X andthereisnoindicationthathewentbeyondtheboundsofthe   warrant.SeeBach,310F.3dat1067("Ifapracticesubstantially `  _jjincrease[s_jj]thetimerequiredtoconductthesearch,thereby  \  aggravatingtheintrusivenessofthesearch,thenitmaybe   reasonabletoavoidthatpractice.")(internalquotationmarks d  omitted);UnitedStatesv._jjHeldt_jj,668F.2d1238,1259(D.C.Cir. `  1981)("[A]flagrantdisregardforthelimitationsinawarrant   mighttransformanotherwisevalidsearchintoageneralone, h therebyrequiringtheentirefruitsofthesearchtobe d suppressed.").   ` Inshort,SergeantLyver'sdecisiontoquestionBellville l outsidethehomeduringMinnis'searchofthehomeofficedidnot h resultinagreaterintrusionupontheBellvilles'FourthAmendment  righttoprivacy.Thedegreeofsupervisionthatheexercisedover p  Minnisduringthesearchwasnotunreasonable.Therewasno !l" violationoftheappellants'FourthAmendmentrights. "$  `  Affirmed.