State of Washington v. David Randall Priest
32549-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- In Dec 2012 ATVs and a 28-ft trailer were stolen from Harrell Myers (off Colville Reservation); some ATVs later recovered at locations including Shelly Priest’s residence on the Colville Reservation and off-reservation sites. David Priest (appellant) was charged with three counts of first-degree trafficking in stolen property and two counts of possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
- A third-party found a wet cell phone at an Omak vacation property (site of a prior burglary) and turned it over to sheriff’s deputies; Detective Sloan dried and briefly activated the phone, viewed contacts and photos, then obtained a warrant to search its contents more fully. The phone contained photos and texts linking Priest to the stolen ATVs.
- Frances Edwards (jailhouse informant) gave a recorded interview implicating Priest but at trial claimed not to recall the interview; the State played her prior recorded statement under ER 803(a)(5) (recorded recollection).
- Priest moved to suppress the phone evidence (arguing state and federal constitutional privacy protections and the Washington Privacy Act) and objected to admission of Edwards’ recorded statement and to imposition of legal financial obligations (LFOs). Trial court denied suppression, allowed the recording, convicted Priest, and imposed discretionary LFOs without an individualized ability-to-pay inquiry.
- On appeal Priest also argued the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because he is an enrolled Colville Tribe member and some relevant acts occurred on reservation land; the superior court held Priest was an enrolled member but found the crimes involved off-reservation acts and property and therefore the State retained jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Priest) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | State: Colville Tribe retroceded jurisdiction; crimes occurred off-reservation so state court has jurisdiction | Priest: as an enrolled Colville member and because key acts occurred on reservation, State lacked jurisdiction | Held: Priest is enrolled, but substantial evidence showed trafficking/possession occurred off-reservation; state court had jurisdiction |
| Warrantless search of cell phone | State: phone was voluntarily abandoned (or alternative exceptions such as community caretaking/plain view) so no warrant required | Priest: phone contents protected by article I, §7 and Fourth Amendment; initial activation/search violated privacy and tainted subsequent warrant-based search | Held: Court affirmed denial of suppression on abandonment ground (abandonment found; no reasonable expectation of privacy) |
| Admission of recorded statement (Frances Edwards) | State: ER 803(a)(5) recorded recollection admissible; recording reliable and corroborated; Edwards unavailable by memory | Priest: admission violated Confrontation/ER 613/ER 803; improper impeachment/use of prior inconsistent statement | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting recording under ER 803(a)(5); recording reliable and corroborated; prior-impeachment concerns addressed |
| Discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) | State: (did not contest below on appeal) | Priest: trial court failed to inquire into ability to pay discretionary LFOs per Blazina | Held: Vacated $310.50 in discretionary LFOs and remanded for an individualized ability-to-pay hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Samalia, 186 Wn.2d 262 (Wash. 2016) (voluntary abandonment of a cell phone left in stolen vehicle defeats expectation of privacy)
- State v. Hinton, 179 Wn.2d 862 (Wash. 2014) (Washington Constitution protects cell phone information as a private affair)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones contain highly personal data; searches generally require a warrant)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (warrant requirement and limited exceptions for vehicle searches)
- State v. Clark, 178 Wn.2d 19 (Wash. 2013) (tribal membership and reservation jurisdictional principles)
- State v. Alvarado, 89 Wn. App. 543 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (admission of recorded recollection under ER 803(a)(5) and indicia of reliability)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (court must inquire into ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)