State Of Washington, V. Mehmet Bilgi
496 P.3d 1230
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Washington State Patrol MECTF (Net Nanny) detective posted an undercover Doublelist ad and posed as a 13‑year‑old "Jake." Mehmet Bilgi (35) communicated with that account via e‑mail and Google Voice text messages, arranged a meeting, arrived at a park, and was arrested with condoms and lubricant in his car.
- Detective Pohl used Callyo to send/receive messages; Callyo generated the undercover number, stored/downloaded chats (zip/.txt), and the account used a shared login that multiple task‑force members could access in real time.
- Bilgi moved to suppress the communications under Washington’s Privacy Act (RCW 9.73) arguing Callyo and off‑recipient officers intercepted/broadcast his messages; he also sought broad discovery (source code, logs, manuals) about Callyo to support suppression arguments.
- The trial court found the messages were private but that Bilgi impliedly consented to recording by the recipient account and denied suppression and the discovery motions; the texts were admitted and Bilgi was convicted of attempted rape of a child (2nd degree) and communication with a minor.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: in the published portion it held no Privacy Act interception occurred because Bilgi intended to send messages to the account controlling "Jake" and shared access to that account did not convert receipt into an unlawful interception; the court also rejected discovery and prosecutorial‑misconduct claims.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bilgi's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law enforcement "intercepted" private e‑mails/texts in violation of RCW 9.73.030 | Messages were sent to and received by the undercover account (Pohl/Jake); Callyo is just software; implied consent to recording by recipient suffices and shared access is lawful | Callyo and off‑recipient officers intercepted/broadcast messages in real time without consent, so recordings/testimony must be suppressed | No interception: Bilgi intended the account as recipient; recipient’s device/account recorded messages and shared access did not violate the Privacy Act; suppression denied |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying discovery of Callyo internals (source code, logs, manuals) | State provided electronic transcripts/metadata of chats; Callyo internals were not material to charges or to show an actual interception; mandatory discovery rules did not require source code | Needed Callyo logs/source code to prove real‑time access/interception and to create an audit trail showing who viewed messages and when | No abuse of discretion: requested materials exceeded mandatory discovery; trial court properly applied CrR 4.7(e) and Bilgi failed to show materiality |
| Whether prosecutor committed reversible misconduct in closing argument | Arguments were based on evidence and permissible inferences; clarifications ("I represent the State") and comments about lack of evidence for defense theories were proper | Prosecutor improperly invoked office prestige, misstated law, shifted burden to defendant, and appealed to emotion ("200+ arrests") | No reversible misconduct: remarks were not prejudicial in context, did not shift burden, and "200+ arrests" was in evidence and used to rebut defense criticism |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roden, 179 Wn.2d 893 (interpreting "intercept" under Washington's Privacy Act and finding unlawful interception where officer opened another's phone before recipient received message)
- State v. Fjermestad, 114 Wn.2d 828 (holding warrantless electronic transmission from undercover body‑wire to other officers violated RCW 9.73)
- State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (recognizing implied consent to recording of electronic communications)
- State v. Glant, 13 Wn. App. 2d 356 (discussing risk sender runs that recipient may share electronic messages)
- State v. Faford, 128 Wn.2d 476 (third‑party eavesdropping on telephone calls violated Privacy Act)
- State v. Christensen, 153 Wn.2d 186 (holding listener activated phone speaker and intercepted oral conversation)
- State v. Boyd, 160 Wn.2d 424 (discovery: defendants entitled to meaningful access to electronic evidence used to prosecute)
- State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47 (discussing disclosure and access to electronic materials for defense preparation)