Opinion ID: 2622136
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Communications with a Person one Believes is an Attorney

Text: ś 17 Athan argues Washington law provides a strong privacy protection of communications between attorneys and their clients. See RCW 5.60.060(2)(a). Although the police officers here were not actually attorneys, they held themselves out as attorneys, in violation of RCW 2.48.180(2)(a). Athan contends he reasonably relied on the detectives' representations that they were attorneys, and thus he should be entitled to rely on the attorney-client privilege to protect his communications as a private affair. ś 18 The State argues the saliva used to seal the envelope was not a communication and therefore not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The communication, if any, would have been the enclosed letter, which the State notes Athan never moved to suppress at trial. Finally, the letter contained a handwritten note stating, [i]f I am billed for any of your services disregard my signature and my participation completely. Ex. 53. The State suggests this added condition of not wanting to be billed by the firm is evidence Athan did not intend to form an attorney-client relationship at that time; instead, he sought merely to preserve his chance to be involved in the lawsuit at some future date. ś 19 As the State notes, Athan did not object to the letter, or its contents, being admitted during the trial. Thus, we need only decide if the saliva on the envelope flap is a communication subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege. Because we find saliva is not a communication in this case, we do not need to decide if an attorney-client relationship was even established. We note this case is not about police intercepting mail addressed to someone else. The envelope, its contents, and the saliva contained on it, were addressed to and received by the SPD detectives, albeit through the use of a ruse. ś 20 When there is no statutory definition to guide us, words should be given their ordinary meaning. Often, we rely on dictionaries to supply the ordinary meaning. State v. Gurske, 155 Wash.2d 134, 145, 118 P.3d 333 (2005) (Sanders, J., concurring). [C]ommunication may be defined as [t]he expression or exchange of information by speech, writing, or gestures. Black's Law Dictionary 296 (8th ed.2004). Under the facts of this case, Athan's saliva was merely a means by which he could seal the envelope. There was no intent or expectation on Athan's part that his saliva would be an expression or exchange of information. Although the State was ultimately able to gain information from the saliva, it does not mean the saliva was a communication as it is ordinarily defined. ś 21 Athan argues he was entitled to rely on the SPD representation that they were attorneys and thus anything sent to them would be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Relying on RCW 5.60.060(2)(a), regarding attorney-client privilege, and RCW 2.48.180(2)(a), regarding unlawful practice of law, and case law, Athan contends police officers posing as attorneys is a ruse strictly prohibited by both Washington law and the law of evidence in general. ś 22 The State distinguishes Athan's cited cases by noting the cases all involved actual communications. In State v. Cory, 62 Wash.2d 371, 382 P.2d 1019 (1963), jail officers eavesdropped on conversations between the defendant and his attorney. In State v. Granacki, 90 Wash.App. 598, 959 P.2d 667 (1998), a police detective intentionally read a legal pad containing privileged notes between the defendant and his attorney. Thus, the State contends, neither case is on point because the facts here do not involve police obtaining actual attorney-client communications. The State also distinguishes People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N.W. 539 (1886) (detective posed as criminal defense attorney to obtain statements from the defendant) and State v. Russell, 83 Wis. 330, 53 N.W. 441 (1892) (prosecutor posed as defendant's attorney in order to obtain statements about the case) because those cases involved the receipt of privileged information. ś 23 We find there is no absolute prohibition of police ruses involving detectives posing as attorneys in the state of Washington. While such a ruse has the potential to gather privileged and confidential information, thereby implicating the concerns raised by Athan and amici, that was not the case here. First, we have already found the saliva on the envelope was not a communication. Second, the letter sent to Athan did not ask Athan to provide additional or confidential information. Thus, the detectives were not seeking a confidential communication and the risk of receiving such a communication was minimal. Unlike Barker and Russell, the ruse was not designed to obtain statements or other confidential information about the Sumstad murder; the goal of the ruse was only to induce Athan to mail an envelope. The use of the ruse did not violate a private affair protected by article 1, section 7. ś 24 We find further support for police posing as an attorney in the analogous case of State v. Townsend, 147 Wash.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002). In Townsend, a Spokane police officer, posing as a 13-year-old girl, engaged in on-line communications with the defendant, Townsend. The police officer saved and later printed the communications for use as evidence against Townsend. Townsend argued the police detective's actions violated Townsend's privacy rights under a similar provision of the state privacy act. In upholding his conviction, we found the communications were private, but that Townsend impliedly consented to the recording of his private email conversations because it was reasonable to infer Townsend was aware it was possible to record the messages. Townsend, 147 Wash.2d at 674-79, 57 P.3d 255. Like Townsend, who presumably was not aware his emails were being sent to and recorded by a police detective for use as evidence against him, Athan impliedly consented to the receipt of his saliva because he mailed it. The fact that he was not aware the recipient was a police detective does not vitiate that consent. ś 25 As we note in our discussion of Athan's CrR 8.3(b) motion, police officers are allowed to use some deception, including ruses, for the purpose of investigating criminal activity. Generally, ruses are upheld as long as the actions do not violate a defendant's due process rights. Because we agree with the trial court that the police ruse used here did not violate Athan's due process rights, we find this ruse permissible.