## Facts

- A long-distance provider used a publicly dialed access number plus a customer-specific 6-digit access code; successful entry caused the provider’s computer to place and bill the call to the corresponding account.
- The provider’s engineering director detected repeated, rapid dialing of the access number followed by changing 6-digit sequences and a long-distance number, consistent with an automated attempt to discover valid customer access codes.
- A security investigator used a line-trap trace and attributed the suspicious calling pattern to a residential telephone line associated with Joseph N. Riley.
- Law enforcement obtained and executed a warrant to search Riley’s home, seizing computer equipment and related materials used as proof for most charges.
- Riley was convicted of three counts of computer trespass and four counts of possession of a stolen access device.

## Issues

1. Whether the search warrant satisfied Washington Constitution article I, section 7 requirements for probable cause and particularity as to items to be seized from a residence and computer-related materials.
2. If the warrant was invalid, which convictions (if any) could be sustained on evidence independent of the unlawful search.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held the search warrant invalid for failing to meet Washington’s particularity requirements.
- Convictions dependent on evidence seized under the invalid warrant were reversed.
- Convictions supported by evidence independent of the unlawful search (including provider testimony and call/trace evidence) were affirmed.
- The court did not adopt a state constitutional good-faith exception to avoid suppression, noting it had neither accepted nor rejected such an exception.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington Constitution article I, section 7, warrants must be supported by probable cause and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized; inadequate limitation of what may be seized renders a warrant invalid.
- Evidence obtained under an invalid warrant is subject to suppression under Washington law, notwithstanding claimed officer good faith, absent an adopted state constitutional good-faith exception.
- When a warrant-based search is unlawful, courts must separate tainted evidence from untainted sources and may affirm only those convictions supported by evidence independent of the unlawful search.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a computer-related search warrant for lack of required particularity under Washington’s constitution, reversed convictions resting on the seized physical evidence, and affirmed only those counts proven by independent, untainted evidence such as call records and trace information.


State v. Riley, 846 P.2d 1365 (Wash. 1993)