WA: Ruse text messages with known contact violated state REP

A ruse police text message exchange with defendant with one of his known contacts violated his reasonable expectation of privacy under the state constitution’s right of privacy. State v. Bowman, 2020 Wash. App. LEXIS 2463 (Sept. 8, 2020):

¶15 The State argues that because Bowman responded to messages from an unfamiliar number, he “knowingly converse[d] with a stranger,” and therefore had no privacy interest. It relies on State v. Goucher, 124 Wn.2d 778, 881 P.2d 210 (1994). There, police executed a search warrant on the home of Garcia-Lopez, a drug dealer known to sell drugs out of his house. 124 Wn.2d at 780. While at the residence, the phone rang. Id. at 780-81. An officer answered the phone and the caller requested to speak to “Luis.” Id. at 781. The officer responded that Luis had “gone on a run,” but that the officer was “handling business” until he returned. Id. The caller and officer proceeded to arrange a deal to buy drugs at the home. Id. When the caller arrived, officers arrested him. Id. Our Supreme Court held that the caller’s privacy rights had not been violated because he had voluntarily conversed with someone he did not know. Id. at 784, 789.

¶16 Here, Bowman did not converse with someone he knew to be a stranger. Rather, he conversed with a person who represented himself as someone that Bowman knew. This case differs from Hinton in that the unfamiliar phone number gave some indication that the other party to the conversation might be someone other than Schabell. But, Dkane affirmatively identified himself as Schabell. His explanation for the changed number was reasonable: that his previous phone had broken. He provided details that Schabell would have known. For example, posing as Schabell, Dkane sent a text message to Bowman stating that he had met him earlier in the day and that they had done business in the past. Based on these facts, Bowman reasonably believed he was texting with a known contact. Therefore, as in Hinton, Bowman had a reasonable expectation of privacy for that conversation. Dkane invaded that right of privacy.