State v. Hinton, 169 Wash. App. 28

Detective Sawyer used Daniel Lee's iPhone to read Hinton's text to the dealer and to reply as the dealer, aiding a drug transaction that led to Hinton's arrest.
Hinton challenges the use of the iPhone for reading and responding to messages as a violation of Washington Constitution article I, section 7 and the Fourth Amendment.
The iPhone was seized from the drug dealer; the detective's texts were read while the phone was in police possession.
The trial court denied suppression based on a prior case holding no privacy interest in messages sent to a device like an iPhone.
The defense argued Hinton had a privacy interest in the texts stored on a third-party device, which should have required a warrant.
The majority holds that Hinton's text messages found on Lee's iPhone are not protected by article I, section 7 or the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Privacy in texts on third-party device	Hinton had a privacy interest in his texts sent to Lee's iPhone.	Texts on a third party's phone are not protected.	Not protected under state or federal constitutions.
Application of Fourth Amendment to reading texts on recipient's phone	Reading his messages without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.	No Fourth Amendment violation because no expectation of privacy in third-party messages.	No Fourth Amendment violation; the messages on Lee's iPhone were not protected.
Private affairs under Washington Constitution in digital texts	Text messages to a third party's phone are private affairs protected by article I, §7.	Text messages to third-party devices are not private affairs.	Text messages on Lee's iPhone not private affairs; no §7 protection in this context.

Wojtyna v. State, 70 Wn. App. 689 (1993) (distinguishes third-party interception in article I, §7)
Meriwether v. United States, 917 F.2d 955 (6th Cir. 1990) (Fourth Amendment privacy in pager messages)
Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (privacy in emails stored with ISPs; informs text message privacy analogy)
City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010) (technology evolution and privacy expectations in text messages; not conclusively deciding)
Jones v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS tracking and privacy expectations in tech age)
Townsend v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002) (privacy of e-mails/private communications; Townsend cited for Townsend private communications)
Goucher v. State, 124 Wn.2d 778 (1994) (private affairs and third-party communications context)
State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169 (2010) (framework for state constitutional privacy analysis)
State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20 (2002) (state constitution article I, §7 privacy standards)