Personal Restraint Petition Of Kenneth Raymond Jr Forga, 48472-2

Kenneth R. Forga was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, and unlawful possession of morphine.
During a warrant search of Forga’s trailer, officers seized a cellular telephone pursuant to a warrant that authorized seizure and inspection of the phone and its contents.
While searching, a phone on the coffee table rang; a detective answered and conversed with the caller, who requested a $20 amount of methamphetamine; the caller arrived and was arrested.
Forga filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not object to admission of the cellular telephone evidence under Washington’s privacy act, RCW chapter 9.73.
The PRP argued the recorded/answered call violated the privacy act and was inadmissible; the State responded that the warrant authorized examination of the phone and its contents.
The Court of Appeals denied the PRP, holding counsel’s failure to move to suppress the phone conversation was not deficient because a suppression motion would have failed given the valid warrant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to admission of a cellular phone conversation	Forga: admission violated Washington privacy act; counsel should have objected/moved to suppress	State: warrant authorized seizure and examination; evidence admissible; objection would fail	Counsel not ineffective; no deficient performance because search was authorized by warrant

In re Pers. Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wn.2d 204 (holding burden standards for collateral attack) (explains requirements for PRP relief)
In re Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835 (ineffective assistance showing satisfies prejudice requirement in PRP)
In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wn.2d 1 (describing Strickland standard adoption in Washington)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance two-prong test)
State v. Roden, 179 Wn.2d 893 (officers may search devices with consent or a warrant under the privacy act)
State v. Samalia, 186 Wn.2d 262 (police may search a cellular telephone covered by a valid search warrant)