State v. Roden
169 Wash. App. 59
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sawyer seized Daniel Lee's iPhone and reviewed texts and call logs.
- Roden exchanged text messages with Lee’s iPhone in a drug transaction that led to his arrest and conviction for attempted heroin possession.
- Roden challenged RCW 9.73.030(1) privacy-act interception of his texts as illegal, arguing lack of consent.
- Roden was separately convicted for heroin possession after a separate incident; he challenged a warrantless search of a zippered bag in a vehicle on privacy grounds.
- Trial court denied suppression and held no privacy-act violation; appellate court affirmed the convictions.
- Dissent argued the privacy act was violated and would suppress evidence as to Roden and challenge constitutional protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the detective violated the Privacy Act by intercepting the private text messages | Roden argues interception violated RCW 9.73.030(1) | State/Sawyer argues implied consent under Townsend | No; implied consent; messages not unlawfully intercepted. |
| Whether Roden impliedly consented to recording of his texts | Roden did not consent to recording by Lee’s iPhone | Townsend implied consent applies to recording when sender expects recording | Yes; Roden impliedly consented to recording of his texts. |
| Whether RCW 9.73.030(1) privacy protections apply to text messages and if they are abrogated by implied consent | Privacy act should protect private text messages regardless of implied consent | Implied consent defeats the privacy protections for text messages | Privacy Act protections apply; implied consent does not override them in this context. |
| Whether the Privacy Act or the Fourth Amendment/Article I, §7 protections bar warrantless search of Lee’s iPhone | Search violated privacy protections | Implied consent and non-private nature of texts justify search | Privacy Act does not permit warrantless search in this context; majority holding so. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Christensen, 153 Wn.2d 186 (2004) (privacy-act four-factor test)
- State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002) (privacy expectations; private communications)
- In re Marriage of Farr, 87 Wn. App. 177 (1997) (implied consent via recording on answering machine)
- City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010) (text messages; privacy expectations; Fourth Amendment)
- Jones v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS/text-message privacy in modern context)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (2010) (privacy protections for emails; third-party access not defeatist)
- State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628 (2008) (privacy-search warrant requirements for digital devices)
- State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169 (2010) (state constitution privacy protections)