¶ 8 The State contends that the superior court erred in granting Bliss's motion, arguing that district courts have authority to grant telephonic interception and recording authorizations under RCW 9.73.090(2) because the statute's plain language refers to “a judge or magistrate,” which includes district court judges under RCW 2.20.020(3) and because other provisions within the Privacy Act contemplate that district court judges will issue recording authorizations. We granted discretionary review of this ruling under RAP 2.3(b)(2). The Skamania County Superior Court granted Bliss's motion, ruling that district courts lack authority to grant authorizations under RCW 9.73.090(2), the controlling provision of the Privacy Act. He argued that suppression was required because the district court judge had neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to issue the interception and recording authorization. ¶ 7 Before trial, Bliss moved to suppress the recording and all references to the telephone conversation. At Buettner's direction, police arrested Bliss and the State charged him with four counts of first degree child rape and one count of first degree incest. 2 During the recorded call, Bliss admitted to sexually abusing C. placed a call to Bliss from the sheriff's office in Skamania County. He also found that intercepting and recording the conversations would substantially aid and supplement normal investigative techniques. The district court judge found probable cause to believe that Bliss had committed the alleged crimes and that evidence relating to the crimes would be obtained by intercepting and recording the telephone conversation. ¶ 5 The district court judge granted Sergeant Buettner's application to intercept and record C.'s conversations with Bliss between Jand August 6, 2013. consented to the Skamania County Sheriff's Office recording and monitoring the conversation. The call's purpose was to obtain evidence that Bliss had committed first degree rape of a child and/or incest. ¶ 4 On July 30, Sergeant Buettner applied to the Skamania County District Court for authorization under RCW 9.73.090(2) to intercept and record a telephone conversation between C. reported this information after allegations arose that Bliss had sexually abused his girlfriend's three-year-old child. 1 reported to Sergeant Monty Buettner of the Skamania County Sheriff's Office that Bliss repeatedly sexually abused her when she was between the ages of seven and eleven. We reverse the superior court's suppression order and remand for further proceedings. ¶ 2 We hold that by enacting RCW 9.73.090(2), the legislature granted district courts the authority to issue telephonic interception and recording authorizations under the Privacy Act and that this specific grant of authority falls within a district court's jurisdiction over preliminary criminal matters. The State argues that the plain language of Washington's “Privacy Act,” specifically RCW 9.73.090(2), gives district courts the authority to grant telephone interception and recording authorizations and that authority is within its jurisdiction. The superior court ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to authorize the interception and recording of the telephone call. ¶ 1 The State appeals from a superior court order granting David Bliss's motion to suppress a telephonic recording during which Bliss made incriminating statements. Lisa Elizabeth Tabbut, Attorney at Law, Winthrop, WA, for Respondent. Weidenfeld, Olympia, WA, Adam Nathaniel Kick, Skamania County Prosecutor, Stevenson, WA, for Petitioner. Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |