State of Washington v. Adrian Sutlej Samalia ( 2015 )

FILED
MARCH 5,2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
I
I IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
I STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
)
)
)
No. 31691-2-111
t )
Ii v.
ADRIAN SUTLEJ SAMALlA,
)
)
)
)
PUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. )
BROWN, J. - Adrian Samalia appeals his conviction for possessing a stolen motor
vehicle. He contends the trial court erred by denying his CrR 3.6 motion to suppress
evidence leading to his identification derived from a cell phone found in an abandoned
stolen vehicle after he fled from the vehicle and evaded pursuit. Because the cell phone
was abandoned, used in pursuit of the fleeing suspect, and not directly used to identify
Mr. Samalia, we hold the trial court did not err in denying suppression of his later
identification from a police database. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
The facts are derived mainly from the trial court's unchallenged CrR 3.6 findings
of fact that are, therefore, verities on appeal. State v. O'Neill, 148 Wash. 2d 564, 571,62
P.3d 489 (2003). Yakima Police Officer Ryan Yates was on patrol when his vehicle
No. 31691-2-111
State v. Samalia
license plate reader indicated he had passed a stolen vehicle. Officer Yates confirmed
the vehicle was stolen by radio and then followed the vehicle that stopped shortly
thereafter. The driver got out of the vehicle and faced towards Officer Yates. The driver
would not obey Officer Yates' command to get back in the vehicle and fled. Officer
Yates pursued the male driver but he got away.
Officer Yates returned and searched the car, partly to help identify the driver. He
found a cell phone on or in the center console. Not knowing who the phone belonged
to, he called some phone numbers found in the cell phone's contacts section. He spoke
to Deylene Telles who agreed to meet him. Officer Yates reported to his sergeant what
happened and gave the phone to him. The sergeant met with Ms. Telles and called her
cell phone from the abandoned cell phone. Her cell phone displayed Mr. Samalia's
name and picture. The sergeant gave the name to Officer Yates, who located Mr.
Samalia's picture in a police database. Officer Yates then identified Mr. Samalia from
the database picture as the fleeing man who had been driving the stolen vehicle.
The State charged Mr. Samalia with possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He
moved unsuccessfully to suppress the cell phone evidence under erR 3.6. From the
above facts, the trial court concluded the cell phone was abandoned, therefore, Mr.
Samalia no longer had an expectation of privacy in it. Following a bench trial, the court
found Mr. Sam alia guilty as charged. He appealed.
2
No. 31691-2-111
State v. Samalia
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the trial court erred by denying Mr. Samalia's CrR 3.6
motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone. He contends the evidence
was constitutionally protected and could not be accessed without a warrant.
We review a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress to determine whether
the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether those findings, in turn,
support the conclusions of law. O'Neill, 148 Wash. 2d at 571. We defer to the trier of fact
on "issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of
the evidence." State v. Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). As
previously mentioned, unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal. O'Neill, 148
Wash. 2d at 571. We review conclusions of law de novo. State v. Johnson, 128 Wn.2d
431,443,909 P.2d 293 (1996).
Under the Washington Constitution, article I, section 7, "No person shall be
disturbed in his private affairs ... without authority of law." Our Supreme Court recently
held private affairs include information obtained through a cell phone. State v. Hinton,
179 Wash. 2d 862, 877, 319 P.3d 9 (2014). Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United
States recently noted, U[m]odern cell phones are not just another technological
convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many
Americans the privacies of life[.] The fact that technology now allows an individual to
carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the
3
No. 31691-2-111
State v. Samalia
protection for which the Founders fought." Riley v. California, _U.S. _ , 134 S. Ct.
2473,2493, 189 LEd. 2d 430 (2014).
A warrantless search violates article I, section 7 unless it falls under one of '''a
few jealously guarded exceptions.'" State v. MacDicken, 179 Wash. 2d 936, 940, 319 P.3d
31 (2014) (quoting State v. Afana, 169 Wash. 2d 169, 176-77,233 P.3d 879 (2010».
Searching voluntarily abandoned property is an exception to the warrant
requirement. State v. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d 402, 407,150 P.3d 105 (2007); see also State
v. Reynolds, 144 Wash. 2d 282, 287, 27 P.3d 200 (2001) (law enforcement may retrieve
and search voluntarily abandoned property without a warrant or probable cause).
"Voluntary abandonment is an ultimate fact or conclusion based generally upon a
combination of act and intent." Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 408 (citing 1 WAYNE R. LAFAVE,
SEARCH AND SEIZURE § 2.6(b), at 574 (3d ed.1996». '''Intent may be inferred from words
spoken, acts done, and other objective facts, and all the relevant circumstances at the
time of the alleged abandonment should be considered.'" Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 408
(quoting State v. Dugas, 109 Wash. App. 592, 595, 36 P.3d 577 (2001 ». The question is
whether the defendant relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy by discarding
the property. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 408. The defendant bears the burden of showing he
had an actual, subjective expectation of privacy and that his expectation was objectively
reasonable. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 409.
A critical factor in determining whether abandonment has occurred is the status
of the area where the searched item was located. State v. Hamilton, 179 Wash. App. 870,
4
No. 31691-2-111
State v. Samalia
885, 320 P.3d 142 (2014). "Generally, no abandonment will be found if the searched
item is in an area where the defendant has a privacy interest." Id. Here, the search
area was an unattended stolen vehicle that Mr. Samalia had been driving and had fled
from when a police officer approached and directed him to return to the vehicle. A
suspect's hasty 'flight under these circumstances is sufficient evidence of an intent to
abandon the vehicle. See United States v. Tate, 821 F.2d 1328, 1330 (8th Cir.1987)
(suspect who fled unlocked vehicle parked on public road abandoned expectation of
privacy); see also Kurtz v. People, 494 P.2d 97,103 (Colo. 1972), overruled on other
grounds by People v. Howard, 599 P.2d 899 (Colo. 1979) (items seized from vehicle
were admissible based on the abandonment of the vehicle, the flight of the accused
from the scene on foot, and the fact the accused remained at large at the time of the
search). Thus, the status of the area searched shows abandonment. We conclude, Mr.
Samalia did not have a privacy interest in the searched area.
We next look to the reasonableness of the officer's actions and Mr. Samalia's
intent. Intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts,
and all the relevant circumstances at the time of the alleged abandonment should be
considered. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 408. The question is whether the defendant has, in
discarding the property, relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy so that its
seizure and search is reasonable within the limits of article I, section 7.
Officer Yates spotted and followed a stolen vehicle until it stopped. The driver
saw the officer, ignored instructions to remain in the vehicle, fled, and, evaded pursuit.
5
No. 31691-2-111
State v. Samalia
The officer reasonably returned to the vehicle to search for evidence of the driver's
identity and continue his pursuit. Mr. Samalia's flight from the stolen vehicle under
these circumstances shows his intent to abandon the vehicle, including its contents.
Citing Hinton and Riley, Mr. Samalia incorrectly argues a warrant is always
required to search a cell phone. In Hinton, police confiscated a cell phone from an
arrestee. 179 Wash. 2d at 865. The cell phone received calls and messages at the police
station leading to Mr. Hinton's arrest and controlled substance conviction. The Hinton
court held, "We find that the officer's conduct invaded Hinton's private affairs and was
not justified by any authority of law offered by the State." Id. at 870. The Riley court
concluded the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement does not
apply to digital data on a cell phone in an arrestee's possession. Riley, 134 S. Ct. at
2493-94. But, the Riley court reasoned "other case-specific exceptions may still justify a
warrantless search of a particular phone." Riley, 134 S. Ct. 2473 at 2494. Specifically,
the Riley court noted the "well-reasoned" exigency exception, "to pursue a fleeing
suspect," as a case that may excuse a cell phone search warrant. Id.
Mr. Samalia's case is distinguished from Hinton and Riley because the cell
phone was not seized from Mr. Samalia's person during his arrest, but was found
abandoned in a stolen vehicle. Voluntarily abandoned property is an exception to the
warrant requirement. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 407. The use of the cell phone in Mr.
Samalia's case comes within both the Evans abandonment exception and the exigency
exception to pursue a fleeing suspect recognized in Riley. Moreover, the use of Mr.
6
No. 31691-2-111
State v. Samalia
Samalia's cell phone was attenuated because the cell phone information used to get his
name came from Ms. Telles' cell phone, not the abandoned cell phone, and the officer
used the name to identify Mr. Samalia from existing police records. Further, the police
were unsure who owned the abandoned cell phone.
Given our reasoning, we conclude the officer did not require a warrant to use the
abandoned cell phone in the manner described here. Further, a warrant was
unnecessary under Riley because the abandoned cell phone was used to pursue the
fleeing suspect. Finally, the use of the abandoned cell phone was too attenuated
because the information leading to Mr. Samalia's identification in a police database
came in the form of a name appearing on Ms. Telles' cell phone. Therefore, we hold
the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Samalia's CrR 3.6 suppression motion
concerning his identification. Given our analysis, we do not reach the State's
arguments concerning standing, ownership of the cell phone, and the State's right to
impound the stolen vehicle.
Affirmed.
Brown, J.
I CONCUR:
Korsmo·J7
7
No. 31691-2-111
SIDDOWAY, J. (dissenting) - One of the few jealously and carefully drawn
exceptions to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Washington Constitution article I, section 7 is voluntarily abandoned
property. State v. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d 402,407, 150 P.3d 105 (2007). The issue is not
abandonment in the strict property right sense but, rather, whether the defendant in
leaving the property has relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy so that the
search and seizure is valid. Id. (citing State v. Dugas, 109 Wash. App. 592,595,36 P.3d
577 (2001), citing, in tum, United States v. Hoey, 983 F.2d 890, 892-93 (8th Cir. 1993)).
Courts ordinarily find that a defendant has relinquished his reasonable expectation of
privacy by leaving property behind in an area where the defendant does not have a
privacy interest. Evans, 159 Wash. 2d at 409. "The great majority of the court decisions
having to do with the abandonment of effects in a search and seizure context are [those in
which] it appears the defendant tried to dispose of certain incriminating objects upon the
lawful approach of or pursuit by the police." 1 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND
SEIZURE: A TREATISE ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT § 2.6(b), at 875 (5th ed. 2012).
By contrast, when a defendant like Adrian Samalia flees the scene of a crime and
leaves behind his cell phone, it is reasonable to assume that it is not because he prefers
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-III - dissent
that police recover it outside his possession but is instead through inadvertence or lack of
an opportunity to retrieve it. Nonetheless, as observed by Professor LaFave (although not
directly addressing cell phones) even an inadvertent leaving of effects in a public place,
whether or not an abandonment in the true sense of that word, has historically amounted
to a loss of any justified expectation of privacy. Id.; but cf State v. Hamilton, 314 Mont.
507,67 P.3d 871 (2003) (an individual who loses or misplaces property continues to have
an expectation of privacy but it is diminished to the extent that the finder may examine
the contents as necessary to identify the owner); Morris v. State, 908 P.2d 931 (Wyo.
1995) (same); State v. Kealey, 80 Wash. App. 162, 175,907 P.2d 319 (1995) (sameV
"Involuntary" abandonment has been held to exist only where property is
abandoned in response to illegal police conduct; that in tum, requires showing "'(1)
unlawful police conduct and (2) a causal nexus between the unlawful conduct and the
abandonment.'" State v. Reynolds, 144 Wash. 2d 282,288,27 P.3d 200 (2001) (quoting
State v. Whitaker, 58 Wash. App. 851, 853, 795 P.2d 182 (1990)). The trial court correctly
found that the conduct of Officer Ryan Yates, who recovered Mr. Samalia's cell phone
I Kealey held that police have a right, if not an obligation to attempt to identifY
and notifY the owner oflost property. 80 Wash. App. at 175 & n.47 (citing RCW
63.21.060). Here, though, police did not identifY themselves to Ms. Telles as law
enforcement seeking to return an abandoned telephone nor, according to the evidence,
was that their purpose in searching data on the phone.
2
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-111 - dissent
from the console of the stolen car, was lawful, and from that concluded that Mr. Samalia
had not made the showing required for voluntary abandonment.
Recent search and seizure jurisprudence recognizes that conventional cell phones
are fundamentally different from other property, and that exceptions to the warrant
requirement might not apply or might apply more narrowly where a cell phone or a
similar device is at issue. As observed last year by the United States Supreme Court,
"[m]odern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those
implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse." Riley v. California, _
U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2488-89, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014). I dissent in this case
because I conclude, considering Washington's search and seizure jurisprudence under
article I, section 7 of the Washington constitution as a whole, that police must generally
secure a warrant before conducting a search of data on a cell phone-even one that has
been left behind in a place where its owner has no privacy interest.
In a series of decisions, our Supreme Court has found that certain information
revealing intimate aspects of life that citizens have held, and should be entitled to hold
safe from government trespass, is entitled to protection under article 1, section 7 of the
Washington constitution regardless of whether the citizen has a privacy interest in the
place where it is found.
In State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash. 2d 54, 65-66, 720 P .2d 808 (1986), the court held that
while the United States Supreme Court had found that Fourth Amendment protection did
3
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-III - dissent
not extend to telephone toll billing records or pen registers, our state constitution required
separate analysis because it "focuses on the protection of a citizen's private affairs,"
justifying a "more expansive interpretation" than under the Fourth Amendment, and
because the State of Washington "has a long history of extending strong protections to
telephonic and other electronic communications." The court concluded that when police
obtained records of the defendant's calls without benefit of the issuance of any valid legal
process, "they unreasonably intruded into her private affairs without authority of law and
in violation of Washington Const. art. [I], § 7." /d. at 68.
In State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571,580,800 P.2d 1112 (1990), our Supreme
Court held that article I, section 7 of our constitution protects garbage cans placed on the
curb from warrantless searches by law enforcement, affirming that "the location of a
search is indeterminative when inquiring into whether the State has unreasonably
intruded into an individual's private affairs."
In State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251,262,76 P.3d 217 (2003), the court held that a
warrant was required in order to install a GPS device on a vehicle for purposes of
tracking it, observing that
the intrusion into private affairs made possible with a GPS device is quite
extensive as the information obtained can disclose a great deal about an
individual's life. . .. In this age, vehicles are used to take people to a vast
number of places that can reveal preferences, alignments, associations,
personal ails and foibles. The GPS tracking devices record all of these
travels, and thus can provide a detailed picture of one's life.
4
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-III dissent
In State v. Jorden, 160 Wash. 2d 121, 129, 156 P.3d 893 (2007), the court held that
the information contained in a motel registry is a private affair under article I, section 7,
reasoning that not only mayan individual's very presence in a motel or hotel be a
sensitive piece of information, but that the registry may also reveal co-guests in the room;
individually or collectively, the information may provide intimate details about a person's
activities and associations.
It was in a different context that our Supreme Court addressed the private
character of personal information maintained on a cell phone in State v. Hinton, 179
Wash. 2d 862, 319 P.3d 9 (2014), but the court's discussion of the historically strong
protection for the type of information a cell phone can contain compels the conclusion
that it, like the information procured by law enforcement in Gunwall, Boland, Jackson,
and Jorden, is subject to the warrant requirement regardless of where law enforcement
finds the phone. In Hinton, the defendant was not the cell phone owner, but an individual
who sent inculpatory text messages to a cell phone that police had seized following the
arrest of a drug dealer. Armed with the drug dealer's phone, police responded to at least
two incoming texts--one of them, Mr. Hinton's-by arranging meetings for drug
transactions and then arresting the would-be purchasers at the proposed meeting site.
The court readily concluded that reviewing the cell phone for text messages was
an intrusion into private affairs:
5
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-III-dissent
Viewing the contents of people's text messages exposes a "wealth of detail
about [a person's] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual
associations." United States v. Jones, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 945, 955,
181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012) (Sotomayor, l, concurring) (discussing GPS
(global positioning system) monitoring). Text messages can encompass the
same intimate subjects as phone calls, sealed letters, and other traditional
forms of communication that have historically been strongly protected
under Washington law. Although text message technology rendered
Hinton's communication to Lee more vulnerable to invasion, technological
advancements do not extinguish privacy interests that Washington citizens
are entitled to hold. The right to privacy under the state constitution is not
confined to "a 'protected places' analysis," or "to the subjective privacy
expectations of modem citizens who, due to well publicized advances in
surveillance technology, are learning to expect diminished privacy in many
aspects of their lives." Myrick, 102 Wash.2d at 513,511,688 P.2d 151.
Hinton, 179 Wash. 2d at 869-70. 2
The United States Supreme Court described the uniquely extensive and sensitive
character of cell phone data in even greater detail in Riley. What follows is only a portion
of its discussion of why a search of data from a cell phone is unlike a search for other
property:
The storage capacity of cell phones has several interrelated
consequences for privacy. First, a cell phone collects in one place many
distinct types of information-an address, a note, a prescription, a bank
statement, a vide(}--that reveal much more in combination than any
isolated record. Second, a cell phone's capacity allows even just one type
of information to convey far more than previously possible. The sum of an
individual's private life can be reconstructed through a thousand
2A four-member dissent disagreed with the Hinton majority, but on standing
grounds; it stated that "[w]hile the constitutionality of a warrantless search of one's own
cell phone is certainly in need of clarification, it is a question for another day." State v.
Hinton, 179 Wash. 2d 862, 882, 319 PJd 9 (2014) (Johnson, J., dissenting).
6
State v. Samaha
No. 31691-2-111 - dissent
photographs labeled with dates, locations, and descriptions; the same
cannot be said of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet.
Third, the data on a phone can date back to the purchase of the phone, or
even earlier. A person might carry in his pocket a slip of paper reminding
him to call Mr. Jones; he would not carry a record of all his
communications with Mr. Jones for the past several months, as would
routinely be kept on a phone .
. . . [C]ertain types of data are also qualitatively different. An Internet
search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet­
enabled phone and could reveal an individual's private interests or
concerns-perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with
frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a
person has been. Historic location information is a standard feature on
many smart phones and can reconstruct someone's specific movements
down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular
building....
Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2489-90.
Summarizing its discussion of the type and volume of personal information found
on a cell phone, the Riley court quoted Learned Hand as having observed in 1926 that "it
is 'a totally different thing to search a man's pockets and use against him what they
contain, from ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him; '" the
Court then observed that if the man's
pockets contain a cell phone, however, that is no longer true. Indeed, a cell
phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the
most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form
many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a
broad array of private information never found in a home in any form­
unless the phone is.
Id. at 2490-91 (quoting United States v. Kirschenblatt, 16 F.2d 202,203 (C.A.2) (1926)).
7
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-111 - dissent
In this case, Adrian Samalia pulled over and stopped the stolen car he was driving,
while being followed by Officer Yates. The officer had confirmed the car was stolen and
was following Mr. Samalia while awaiting backup. Mr. Samalia's stop caused Officer
Yates to activate his lights. After Mr. Samalia stepped out of his car and saw that Officer
Yates had pulled out his service weapon and intended to detain him, Mr. Samalia fled. It
is reasonable to assume that he either forgot about his cell phone in the console of the
stolen car or decided that if he hoped to escape, retrieving the phone was not an option.
No reported Washington decision has directly addressed whether a citizen
relinquishes his reasonable expectation of privacy in the data on his cell phone by leaving
the phone behind at the scene of a crime. In my view, the Gunwall to Jorden line of
cases, together with Hinton, collectively compel the conclusion that the voluminous
private information likely to be found on a cell phone remains protected by article I,
section 7 of the Washington constitution even when the phone is left behind in a place
where the defendant has no privacy interest. Requiring a search warrant will assure that
there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is involved in criminal activity and
that evidence of the criminal activity can be found in the data on the cell phone. In this
case Officer Yates presumably would have been able to demonstrate probable cause to a
magistrate, as long as he first spoke to the owner of the stolen car and confirmed that the
phone did not belong to her or some innocent prior passen"ger.
8
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-II1 - dissent
The only other exception to the warrant requirement for the data on Mr. Samalia's
cell phone identified by the majority is the exigency exception that it notes was
recognized in Riley. Majority at 7. But Riley holds that obtaining a warrant to search
data on a cell phone should be the rule because "data on the phone can endanger no one."
Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2485. While recognizing that the exigent circumstances exception
will be available in some cases, the Court observed that the exception "requires a court to
examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case." Id.
at 2494 (citing Missouri v. McNeely, _ U.S. _,133 S. Ct. 1552, 1559,185 L. Ed. 2d
696 (2013)). Here, the State did not argue that exigent circumstances existed nor did the
trial court find any. See Clerk's Papers (CP) at 11-16 (State's opposition to motion to
suppress); CP at 27-32 (findings and conclusions). The only crime as to which Officer
Yates had probable cause was Mr. Samalia's possession ofa stolen car, and the stolen car
had been left behind. There was no evidence that Mr. Samalia was armed, was suspected
of any other crime, or otherwise presented a danger.
Finally, the majority concludes that the use ofMr. Samalia's cell phone was
attenuated because officers obtained his name from the telephone of Deylene Telles, Mr.
Samalia's former girlfriend. Maj ority at 7. But the evidence was clear that officers
identified Ms. Telles only by searching "contacts" on Mr. Samalia's cell phone, and that
it was only after using Mr. Samalia's phone to lure her to a meeting at which they
arrested her, used Mr. Samalia's phone to call her, and then took her phone to see who it
9
State v. Sam alia
No.31691-2-III dissent
identified as the caller, that they obtained Mr. Samalia's name. 3 Officer Yates thereafter
recognized Mr. SamaHa as the driver of the stolen car from a photograph that he located
using the name from Ms. Telles's phone. But the officer had no prior knowledge of Mr.
SamaHa nor did he have other information connecting Mr. Samalia to the stolen car. The·
independent source exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply.
"The attenuation test suggests that where there are intervening independent factors
along the chain of causation, the taint of illegally obtained evidence becomes so
dissipated as to preclude suppression of derivative evidence as 'fruit' of the illegal police
action." Charles W. Johnson and Debra L. Stephens, Survey of Washington Search and
Seizure Law: 2013 Update, 36 SEATTLEU. L. REV. 1581, 1765 (2013) (citing State v.
Eserjose, 171 Wash. 2d 907, 919, 259 PJd 172 (2011)). "Washington courts have not
explicitly adopted the attenuation doctrine, but they have applied it." Id. The majority
fails to explain any step along the causal chain leading to Officer Yates' review of Mr.
3 Ms. Telles's testimony at Mr. Samalia'sbench trial, at which the trial court
revisited its suppression decision following a motion for reconsideration, was as follows:
They were about to handcuff me and right when they-he was
like-to walk around me, the other police officer had a phone and they
called from that phone to my phone, and that's when my phone brought up
a picture and a phone number and a name. And he took the phone out of
my hands and he said, "Who is this?"
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 61.
10
State v. Samalia
No. 31691-2-II1 - dissent
Samalia's photograph that was independent of use of the cell phone.
F or these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
11