State Of Washington v. Lee Earl Bunn, 48813-2

Bunn paid an electronics store to transfer files from his old computer to a new one; the transfer agreement warned employees they would turn over child pornography to authorities.
During the transfer, an error message on Bunn’s old computer displayed a file name explicitly referencing sexual conduct with a 13‑year‑old and terms like “preteen” and “kiddie incest.”
Store employees called law enforcement and showed Deputy Duane Dobbins the error message/file name when he arrived; Dobbins did not open or search the computer but seized it without a warrant.
A subsequent warrant authorized forensic analysis, which uncovered suspected child pornography; the State charged Bunn with second‑degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Bunn moved to suppress the seized computer; the trial court denied suppression under the plain view exception. After a stipulated‑facts bench trial, Bunn was convicted and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution requires inadvertent discovery for plain‑view seizures	State: inadvertence is not required; federal and state precedent supports objective plain‑view standards	Bunn: Washington’s article I, § 7 affords broader privacy and therefore requires inadvertent discovery for plain‑view seizures	Held: Inadvertent discovery is not required under article I, § 7; Washington followes Horton/O'Neill line eliminating inadvertence
Whether the file name gave officers probable cause/immediate recognition to seize the computer under plain view	State: the explicit terms in the file name gave Deputy Dobbins probable cause to believe the computer contained child pornography	Bunn: a file name alone is insufficient to immediately recognize contraband because no images were actually observed	Held: The file name provided probable cause and met the immediate‑recognition standard; seizure was authorized under the plain view exception

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (held inadvertence is not essential to plain‑view seizures under the Fourth Amendment)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (plurality that emphasized inadvertent discovery in earlier plain‑view doctrine)
State v. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564 (2003) (applied plain‑view test under article I, § 7 without requiring inadvertence)
State v. Weller, 185 Wn. App. 913 (2015) (explained immediate‑recognition/probable‑cause standard for plain view)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (discussed plain‑view seizure requirements and probable cause)
State v. Dorsey, 40 Wn. App. 459 (1985) (probable cause standard for believing items are evidence of a crime)