State v. Samalia
186 Wash. 2d 262, 375 P.3d 1082 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person abandons their constitutionally protected privacy interest in a cell phone and its contents when they voluntarily leave the device in a stolen vehicle while fleeing from a lawful traffic stop.
Facts:
- Yakima Police Officer Ryan Yates observed Adrian Sutlej Samalia driving a vehicle that was confirmed to be stolen.
- Officer Yates initiated a traffic stop, and Samalia pulled over.
- Samalia exited the vehicle and faced the officer, but then disobeyed commands and fled on foot.
- Samalia successfully escaped, leaving a cell phone behind near the center console of the stolen vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Adrian Sutlej Samalia in the trial court with possession of a stolen vehicle.
- Samalia filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone, arguing it was the result of an unconstitutional warrantless search.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, ruling that Samalia had voluntarily abandoned any privacy interest in the cell phone.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Samalia guilty as charged.
- Samalia (appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division Three.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a split decision, holding the search was justified under the doctrines of abandonment, exigent circumstances, and attenuation.
- Samalia (petitioner) sought discretionary review from the Washington Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 person abandon their constitutionally protected privacy interest in their cell phone under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution when they voluntarily leave it in a stolen vehicle while fleeing from a lawful traffic stop?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiggins, J.
Yes, a person abandons their constitutionally protected privacy interest in their cell phone under these circumstances. While cell phones and their data are considered 'private affairs' under the Washington Constitution and are generally protected from warrantless searches, this protection is not absolute and can be forfeited through abandonment. The court determined that the common law doctrine of abandonment applies to cell phones just as it does to other forms of personal property. Samalia's actions of fleeing a lawful stop and leaving his phone in a stolen vehicle, in which he had no legitimate privacy interest, constituted a voluntary abandonment of the phone and any privacy interest associated with it. This act of abandonment is distinct from merely losing or mislaying property, where a privacy interest is retained.
Dissenting - Yu, J.
No, voluntarily abandoning a physical cell phone does not mean a person also abandons their privacy interest in the vast amount of digital data the device contains or can access. The dissent argues for a critical distinction between the physical object (the phone) and the digital information it holds, comparing the phone to a key and the data to a house; abandoning the key does not grant warrantless access to the house. Applying the common law doctrine of abandonment mechanically to modern technology with immense data storage capacity is improper and ignores the qualitative difference between a cell phone and other personal items. This holding improperly incentivizes warrantless government searches of cell phones, threatening the privacy of anyone who might lose a phone near a crime scene.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the traditional common law doctrine of abandonment applies to modern digital devices like cell phones under Washington's constitution. It solidifies the principle that while cell phones carry a high expectation of privacy, this right can be relinquished through the owner's conduct. The ruling provides law enforcement a clear basis for searching a device left behind by a fleeing suspect under similar circumstances, without needing a warrant. Future legal challenges will likely focus on the factual nuances distinguishing intentional abandonment from situations where a device is merely lost or temporarily misplaced during a police encounter.
