State v. Riley
1993 Wash. LEXIS 66, 121 Wash. 2d 22, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant that authorizes the seizure of broad, generic categories of items violates the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement if it fails to state the specific crime being investigated or is not otherwise limited by reference to a particular crime.
Facts:
- Northwest Telco Corporation (Telco) provided long-distance telephone service that required customers to use a 6-digit access code.
- On January 9 and 10, 1990, a Telco employee, Cal Edwards, observed that the company's general access number was being dialed repeatedly at regular 40-second intervals, with different 6-digit codes being entered each time.
- Edwards identified this activity as a computer hacker attempting to discover valid customer access codes.
- On January 11, Edwards enlisted the help of Toni Ames, a U S West security investigator, who used a 'line trap' to trace the hacking activity to the home of Joseph Riley.
- The dialing from Riley's home continued until the morning of January 12.
- On January 16, before police executed a search warrant at his home, Joseph Riley admitted to Investigator Richard Kitchen that he was the person who had used the computer and modem to attempt to obtain Telco's access codes.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Riley was charged in a Washington state trial court with multiple counts of computer trespass and possession of a stolen access device.
- The trial court denied Riley's motion to suppress evidence, ruling the search warrant was valid.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Riley of three counts of computer trespass and four counts of possession of a stolen access device.
- Riley appealed his convictions to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Washington Supreme Court accepted certification from the Court of Appeals to hear the appeal directly.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a search warrant violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement when it authorizes the seizure of broad categories of items without specifying the crime under investigation or otherwise limiting the scope of the search?
Opinions:
Majority - Guy, J.
Yes. A search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement when it fails to limit the scope of the search by reference to a specific crime. The warrant in this case authorized the seizure of broad categories of material, such as 'notes, records, lists, ledgers, ... personal computers,' but was not limited by reference to any specific criminal activity, such as computer trespass. The purpose of the particularity requirement is not only to limit the executing officer's discretion but also to inform the person subject to the search what items may be seized. An officer's personal knowledge of the crime does not cure this defect, nor does an unattached and unincorporated affidavit that specifies the crime. Therefore, the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad and invalid, and the evidence seized pursuant to it must be suppressed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strict application of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, especially in the context of searches for electronic data where generic descriptions are common. The court establishes that an officer's knowledge or an unincorporated affidavit cannot save a facially overbroad warrant, emphasizing that the warrant itself must provide the necessary limits on the search's scope. This holding serves as a crucial guide for law enforcement when drafting warrants for complex crimes, mandating that the specific crime under investigation be stated on the warrant to prevent it from becoming a general warrant. It also illustrates how convictions can be partially reversed, with counts based on illegally seized evidence overturned while counts supported by independent evidence, like a pre-search confession, are upheld.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Riley