State Of Washington, V Bryan Earle Glant, 52142-3

Washington State Patrol Missing and Exploited Children Task Force (MECTF) ran an online "Net Nanny" sting on Craigslist; Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.) donated funds supporting such operations.
An undercover officer posed as "Hannah" (a mother) and posted an ad soliciting sexual encounters involving children.
Bryan Glant (20) responded by e-mail/text, agreed to sexual acts with two daughters (ages 6 and 11/13 context), and drove from Mercer Island to meet with lubricant in his pocket.
Law enforcement arrested Glant; he was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree rape of a child and tried to suppress his messages and move to dismiss for outrageous government conduct.
Trial court denied suppression and dismissal; bench trial on stipulated facts convicted Glant on both counts and imposed a standard-range sentence (108 months to life) after considering, but denying, an exceptional downward sentence for youth.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Glant)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Motion to suppress e‑mails/texts under the Washington Privacy Act and art. I, §7	Recording/interception required; no all‑party consent; WPA and state‑privacy violated	Messages sent by device to a stranger are preserved/recorded; sender impliedly consented; no reasonable expectation of confidentiality	Denied. Court found messages were private but Glant impliedly consented to recording; no WPA or state‑constitutional violation
Motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct based on O.U.R. funding and alleged inducement	Private funding and officer overtime created incentives to instigate arrests and escalate charges; due process violated by outrageous conduct	Funding was permissible and attenuated; MECTF controlled the operation; motive was public protection, not lawlessness	Denied. Applying Lively factors, court concluded conduct was not so shocking as to violate due process; funding was too attenuated to require dismissal
Appealability of sentence / denial of exceptional downward sentence for youth	Trial court ignored Dr. Packard’s youth/impulsivity evidence and improperly refused to grant downward departure	Court considered youth evidence, exercised discretion, and imposed a standard‑range term; standard range not appealable	Affirmed. Court expressly considered the request and exercised discretion; standard‑range sentence cannot be appealed

State v. Racus, 7 Wn. App. 2d 287, 433 P.3d 830 (2019) (sending e‑mail/text via device implies consent to preservation/recording)
State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996) (outrageous government conduct framework and Lively factors)
State v. Goucher, 124 Wn.2d 778, 881 P.2d 210 (1994) (voluntary communication with a stranger carries risk of nonconfidentiality)
State v. McFarland, 189 Wn.2d 47, 399 P.3d 1106 (2017) (court must actually consider and may exercise discretion on exceptional sentences; categorical refusal is appealable)
State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002) (elements and scope of the Washington Privacy Act)
State v. Roden, 179 Wn.2d 893, 321 P.3d 1183 (2014) (e‑mails and text messages are private communications under state law)
State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (two‑step article I, §7 privacy inquiry: intrusion and legal authorization)
State v. Hinton, 179 Wn.2d 862, 319 P.3d 9 (2014) (art. I, §7 protects against warrantless governmental intrusion into private affairs)