JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CASE NO. 05-5811RBL

Plaintiff, )

v. ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS 

DONG WAN PARK ) 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________ 

Defendant, Dong Park, through counsel, moves to suppress the following

documents/recordings in this case. 

1. All recordings and transcripts therefrom that purport a telephone conversation

between Pastor Dong Wan Park, defendant, and Kyoung Hun Do.

Reason: This Federal Court should defer to Washington law and the

expectations of its citizens that in Washington all parties to a telephone

conversation must give consent before such conversation can be recorded and

used as evidence in a trial. 

Washington is an “all party” consent state (RCW 9.73.030) and Pastor Dong

Case 3:05-cr-05811-RBL Document 39 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 6
Park did not give consent to record the telephone conversation with Kyoung Hun

Do. Declaration of Pastor Dong Wan Park. 

It is a crime in Washington to record a telephone conversation without all

persons giving consent. RCW 9.73.080. Evidence obtained in violation of the

act is inadmissible for any purpose at trial. RCW 9.73.050. Washington law

states that:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be

unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the

state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept,

or record any:

 (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio,

or other device between two or more individuals between points within

or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to

record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device

is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the

participants in the communication;

 (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise

designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the

device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all

the persons engaged in the conversation.

 (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire

communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as

the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b)

which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other

unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or

repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to

communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in

RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded

with the consent of one party to the conversation.

 (3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter,

consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced

to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in

any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or

Case 3:05-cr-05811-RBL Document 39 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 6
conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if

the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be

recorded.

 (4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine,

wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of

bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or

part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge

communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if

the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device

is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the

consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any

such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or

television station from divulging the communication or conversation.

[1986 c 38 § 1; 1985 c 260 § 2; 1977 ex.s. c 363 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 93 §

1.]

Plaintiff does not fit into any of the above exceptions to the “all party” consent

statute. Even though federal law allows “one party consent” admissible

recordings in certain circumstances (e.g., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d)), it is

defendant’s contention that the federal law “one party consent” to a recording

should only be permitted in the absence of a more restrictive state law, especially

when violating the more restrictive law is a crime and the recordings and

transcripts are inadmissible in state court as evidence, and when to allow such

conduct by federal agents would violate Washington citizen’s expectation of

privacy: 

Washington law offers greater privacy rights than the federal constitution. 

In State v. Ladson, 138 Wash. 2d 343, 979 P. 2d 833 (1999), the Washington

Case 3:05-cr-05811-RBL Document 39 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 6
State Supreme Court stated that Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution

is:

explicitly broader than that of the Fourth Amendment as it "clearly

recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations' "

and

places greater emphasis on privacy. . . . Further, while the Fourth

Amendment operates on a downward ratcheting mechanism of

diminishing expectations of privacy, article I, section 7, holds the line by

pegging the constitutional standard to "those privacy interests which

citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from

governmental trespass absent a warrant.

Further, the meaning of the recordings/transcripts are vague, amphibolous, and

speculative, contain inadmissible hearsay, and is without foundation. 

Further, the recordings are irrelevant to the charges based on the day Mr. Park

signed the I-129 petitions in question. 

2. All checks (personal, business, cashiers checks, money orders) to be offered into

evidence by plaintiff based upon lack of relevancy, foundation, and the best evidence

doctrine. At this time, plaintiff has not given defense an exhibit list, but it appears

that plaintiff plans to offer canceled checks as evidence in this case. Plaintiff has not

established the relevancy of any of the checks, especially when the payee is not

defendant. Such checks include ck#2043, dated 12-10-02, from J&K Seattle

Services Inc. to Soon Ja Park for $1,500.00; ck#956, dated 09-06-05, from Kyoung

Case 3:05-cr-05811-RBL Document 39 Filed 04/21/06 Page 4 of 6
Hun Do to Tacoma Hope Korean Church for $1,000.00; ck#734, dated 10-12-03,

from Kyung Hun Do to Tacoma Hope Korean Church for $6,000.00; ck#30707, dated

12-02-1999,from Washington First International Bank to Hope Korean Church for

$24,605.87; ck#33776, dated 11-14-2000, from Washington First International Bank

to Sul Yul Park for $267.76; ck#33775, dated 11-14-2000, from Washington First

International Bank to Sul Yul Park for $32,400.00; ck#0340002039, dated 12-19-

2002, from Young E. Park to Tacoma Hope Korean Church for $20,000.00;

ck#0340002033 , dated 12-17-2002 , from Tae H. Kim to Tacoma Hope Korean

Church for $15,000.00. 

Accordingly, until plaintiff supplies defendants with its exhibit list and can show the

relevance and proper foundation of such checks, and can provide defense with the

originals, such checks should be suppressed from trial. 

3. Any and all documents, including immigration forms signed by defendant (e.g.,

Form I-129 petitions), where the originals of such documents or petitions cannot be

provided to defendants or to the court. 

4. All reports from the Department of Homeland Security (usually called, “Report of

Investigation”) because they contain hearsay, lack relevance, focus on criminal

conduct of 3rd parties, and not defendant, and thus tend to try defendant as guilty by

association. Most of the reports are titled , “Jung Kim and Associates” and contain

a synopsis that speaks of damaging allegations of criminal activity of Jung Kim, who

Case 3:05-cr-05811-RBL Document 39 Filed 04/21/06 Page 5 of 6
is not the defendant. 

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of April, 2006. 

Pacific Law, Inc., P.S. 

By: Ss (Glen Prior) 

By: Glen Prior, Esq, Pres. WSBA22487

CERTIFICATION

I certify that I electronically sent the foregoing document to Katheryn Frierson,

plaintiff’s counsel in the above case, using the District Court’s electronic filing

system, at https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/ 

Ss. Glen Prior, Esq. 

Case 3:05-cr-05811-RBL Document 39 Filed 04/21/06 Page 6 of 6