State v. IBARRA-CISNEROS
263 P.3d 591
Wash.2011Background
- Adrian Ibarra-Raya's home was warrantlessly searched in July 2006; drugs were found and he was arrested.
- Gilberto Ibarra-Cisneros attempted to reach Adrian via Adrian's seized cell phone, which was answered by a DEA agent at the police station in Spanish.
- A meeting was arranged in a parking lot, where Ibarra-Cisneros was located and a bindle of cocaine was found at his feet after police approached.
- Both brothers moved to suppress evidence from the home search; the trial court denied suppression, Court of Appeals reversed Adrian's conviction but affirmed Gilberto-Cisneros based on attenuation.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review to address attenuation and privacy issues arising from the illegally seized cell phone and subsequent cocaine evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attenuation purges taint from an illegal search under article I, section 7. | Ibarra-Cisneros contends attenuation applies to admit the cocaine evidence. | State argues attenuation should not defeat the exclusionary rule here under Washington law. | Attenuation not sufficient; taint not purged; evidence suppressed. |
| Whether Ibarra-Cisneros had a protectable privacy interest in his brother's cell phone or call. | Ibarra-Cisneros asserts privacy interests in the phone/conversation justify exclusion. | State did not advance privacy interests; no violation of article I, section 7. | No privacy interest found; no suppression remedy under article I, section 7. |
| Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Ibarra-Cisneros's cocaine possession conviction. | Proximity to the bindle is insufficient for constructive possession. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports possession. | Evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ibarra-Raya, 145 Wash.App. 516, 187 P.3d 301 (2008) (attenuation analysis in Court of Appeals' decision)
- Tan Le, 103 Wash.App. 354, 12 P.3d 653 (2000) (attenuation framework cited by WA Courts)
- Goucher, 124 Wash.2d 778, 881 P.2d 210 (1994) (no privacy interest when defendant voluntarily spoke to a stranger and used a walkie-talkie phone)
- Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (establishes attenuation doctrine framework)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (taint dissipation and attenuation concept in suppression analysis)
- State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (describes the exclusionary rule as nearly categorical)
- State v. Armenta, 134 Wash.2d 1, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997) (four-factor attenuation test including Miranda warnings)
- State v. Eserjose, 171 Wash.2d 907, 259 P.3d 172 (2011) (treatment of attenuation doctrine under WA Constitution)