State v. Fedorov, 183 Wash. 2d 669

Roman Fedorov was arrested for attempting to elude and DUI; transported to the Fife police/jail for a required BAC test.
During the statutorily required 15-minute observation period, Fedorov requested and received a telephone consultation with an on-call public defender under CrR 3.1.
The Fife jail is one single windowless room staffed by one officer (Trooper Durbin). Durbin remained in the room for safety and to observe the pretest period, but moved to the far side and filled out paperwork.
The attorney and Fedorov limited their exchange to yes/no questions; the call lasted ~13 minutes, the trooper did not interrupt, and the trooper testified he could not recall hearing the conversation.
Fedorov consented to the BAC test (results ~0.095–0.096), moved to suppress on the ground that the trooper’s presence denied private consultation under CrR 3.1, was denied suppression and convicted; Court of Appeals affirmed on alternative grounds and the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CrR 3.1 guarantees an arrestee a right to private, uninterrupted attorney-client consultation (absolute privacy)	Fedorov: CrR 3.1 requires effective private consultation; officer’s presence prevented full, private communication and thus violated the rule	State/Trooper: CrR 3.1 provides only an opportunity to contact counsel; privacy can be balanced against safety and practical concerns	Held: No absolute right to privacy under CrR 3.1; the rule guarantees opportunity, not absolute seclusion; privacy is balanced under the totality of circumstances
Whether the trooper’s presence in the room here violated CrR 3.1 under the totality of circumstances	Fedorov: Trooper’s presence foreclosed private communication and prejudiced the consultation	State: Trooper had legitimate safety and statutory observation reasons; he afforded as much privacy as feasible and did not eavesdrop or interfere	Held: No CrR 3.1 violation—trooper’s safety/observation duties and the room layout justified his presence; no evidence of interference or intentional eavesdropping

City of Airway Heights v. Dilley, 45 Wn. App. 87 (1986) (CrR 3.1 requires opportunity to contact counsel, not actual communication)
City of Seattle v. Sandholm, 65 Wn. App. 747 (1992) (CrRLJ 3.1 satisfied by opportunity to speak with public defender though not with counsel of choice)
City of Seattle v. Koch, 53 Wn. App. 352 (1989) (CrRLJ 3.1 is limited; officer presence does not automatically violate right—fact-specific balancing)
State v. Staeheli, 102 Wn.2d 305 (1984) (rule-based right does not permit delaying BAC testing while waiting for counsel)
State v. Cory, 62 Wn.2d 371 (1963) (intentional eavesdropping on attorney-client conversation violates Sixth Amendment)
State v. Pe na-Fuentes, 179 Wn.2d 808 (2014) (police wiretapping of attorney-client calls presumed prejudicial absent State proof otherwise)