State v. Samalia, 375 P.3d 1082

Background

Officer Yates followed a confirmed stolen vehicle; its driver (Samalia) ignored commands and fled on foot, leaving the vehicle and a cell phone inside.
Yates returned to the vehicle, seized the phone without a warrant, and called contacts listed on it to identify the owner.
A contact (Telles) was arrested when she came to retrieve the phone; her phone showed Samalia as the incoming caller, and police used a law-enforcement photo database to identify Samalia as the fleeing driver.
Samalia was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless phone search; the trial court denied suppression, finding abandonment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on multiple grounds (abandonment, exigent circumstances, attenuation); the Washington Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Samalia)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Are cell phones and their data “private affairs” under Wash. Const. art. I, § 7?	Cell-phone data is intimate and deserving of constitutional protection.	Cell phones contain private information but established doctrine governs.	Held: Yes—cell phones and their contents are private affairs; warrant required absent an exception.
Does the abandonment doctrine apply to cell phones?	Abandonment should not freely permit warrantless searches of phones or at least requires a heightened showing because of the volume of sensitive data.	Abandonment doctrine applies to all personal property, including cell phones; no special rule.	Held: Abandonment doctrine applies to cell phones.
Did Samalia voluntarily abandon the phone such that police could search it without a warrant?	Samalia argued his privacy interest remained; flight does not automatically equal intent to abandon.	The State argued Samalia voluntarily abandoned the vehicle and its contents by fleeing, so no privacy interest remained.	Held: Trial court’s factual finding of abandonment is supported by substantial evidence and is affirmed.
May the Court of Appeals rely on exigent circumstances or attenuation to uphold the search?	Samalia opposed admission; these doctrines were not argued below.	The Court of Appeals relied on exigent circumstances and attenuation as alternative grounds.	Held: The Supreme Court declined to consider exigent circumstances or attenuation because the State did not raise them at the suppression hearing.

Key Cases Cited

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones contain vast quantities of private information; search-incident-to-arrest exception does not justify warrantless phone searches)
State v. Hinton, 179 Wn.2d 862 (2014) (text messages are private affairs under art. I, § 7)
State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 (2007) (analyze nature and extent of information for private-affairs inquiry)
State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1986) (telephone records require warrant under art. I, § 7)
State v. Reynolds, 144 Wn.2d 282 (2001) (abandoned property may be retrieved and searched without implicating article I, § 7)
State v. Kealey, 80 Wn. App. 162 (1995) (distinguishes lost/mislaid property from voluntarily abandoned property)
State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251 (2003) (GPS attachment and location-tracking implicate privacy interests)