State v. Denham, 489 P.3d 1138

Background

Veterans Day weekend 2016 burglary of Mallinak Designs Jewelers; a 5.29‑carat diamond (with GIA paperwork) was stolen and sold by Lynell Denham within days.
Investigators linked Denham to sales of stolen jewelry, observed a large cash down payment for a Range Rover, and found burglary‑related items (drawings/schematics, tools, a headlamp cap similar to one recovered at the store) during a warranted search of his residence.
Police obtained an addendum warrant seeking months of records (subscriber, billing, communications, images, and cell site location information (CSLI)) for two phone numbers linked to Denham; the CSLI showed calls routed through a tower ~550 feet from the jewelry store around the burglary time. The State conceded parts of the warrant were overbroad in time and scope.
At trial the court admitted two 2008 video interviews in which Denham discussed sophisticated safe‑bypassing/burglary techniques; the judge excluded using them for identity/modus operandi but admitted Denham’s admissions of skill/knowledge. Denham was convicted of second‑degree burglary and first‑degree trafficking.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the warrant affidavits lacked a sufficient nexus between the CSLI and the crime and that the recordings had been used impermissibly; the Washington Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court (majority) reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the convictions; a dissent argued the CSLI warrant lacked particularized nexus, the warrant was overbroad, and the errors were not harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause / nexus to search CSLI in phone‑company records	Affidavits plus specific facts (Denham used the numbers with businesses and probation officers; he arranged the diamond sale on one number; investigators confirmed Denham trafficked distinctive stolen items) create a reasonable inference the phones/CSLI would contain evidence of the burglary.	Affidavits relied on boilerplate/generalizations about phones and habits; they failed to state sufficiently particularized facts tying the CSLI or phones to the burglary, so no nexus/probable cause.	Majority: Warrant affidavits—read as a whole—gave a reasonable inference that evidence would be in CSLI; probable cause and nexus were adequate. Dissent: Affidavits were general and insufficient; would suppress CSLI.
Admissibility of prior‑bad‑acts interviews (ER 404(b))	The 2008 interviews show Denham’s specialized knowledge and tend to prove identity/knowledge/ability to commit a sophisticated burglary; probative value exceeds prejudice.	Prior‑bad‑acts evidence is not an element of burglary/trafficking and is prejudicial; videos should not be used to show identity/modus operandi absent a highly distinctive signature.	Court: Admission was not an abuse of discretion—videos showed specialized knowledge that made commission of this burglary more probable and were not overly prejudicial; trial court properly limited identity/modus operandi use.
Overbreadth of warrant and effect on conviction	State conceded parts were overbroad but argued the judge did not rely on evidence seized under overbroad portions; any overbroad material would be suppressible if challenged.	Warrant sought months of data (well beyond charging period); historical CSLI for months is a broad, exploratory search that violates the particularity/nexus requirements and undermines privacy—requiring vacatur and suppression.	Majority: Although portions were overbroad, Denham did not appropriately challenge overbreadth at trial on this ground; record does not show reliance on evidence seized under overbroad portions. Dissent: Overbreadth tainted the verdict and was not harmless; would vacate convictions.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Muhammad, 194 Wn.2d 577 (2019) (CSLI is constitutionally protected; discusses privacy concerns of phone location data)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (historical CSLI reveals intimate details; government tracking of location is near‑perfect surveillance)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances approach to probable cause; corroboration can validate an otherwise deficient tip)
State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133 (1999) (warrant affidavits cannot rest on broad generalizations; requires particularized nexus between crime and place/thing to be searched)
State v. Neth, 165 Wn.2d 177 (2008) (probable cause requires nexus between criminal activity, the item to be seized, and the place to be searched; review standards)
State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (1995) (framework for admitting other‑acts evidence under ER 404(b): purpose, relevance to an element or fact of consequence, and probative‑v‑prejudicial balancing)
State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538 (1992) (warrants must describe with particularity; overbroad warrants require suppression of improperly seized evidence)