Opinion ID: 1367783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Use of Line Trap

Text: Riley raises an argument against the admission of one of the above pieces of corroborating evidence. In particular, he objects that the line trap placed by U S West, which traced the hacking activity to Riley's home, recorded a private communication in violation of RCW 9.73.030(1)(a). Therefore, Riley argues, the information derived from the line trap may not be used in any criminal case against him pursuant to RCW 9.73.050. [3] [10] We reject Riley's argument. RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) provides in part that it shall be unlawful for any ... corporation ... to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone... between two or more individuals ... 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[.] Because RCW 9.73 does not define private communication, courts must give the term its ordinary and usual meaning. Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Dep't, 119 Wn.2d 178, 18990, 829 P.2d 1061 (1992); State v. Forrester, 21 Wn. App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978), review denied, 92 Wn.2d 1006 (1979). The ordinary meaning of communication is the act ... of imparting or transmitting or facts or information communicated. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 460 (1986). [11] Here, the line trap traced the hacking activity to, and discovered nothing more than, Riley's telephone number. A telephone number, unless it is itself communicated, does not constitute a communication. Therefore, discovering Riley's telephone number via a tracer does not implicate RCW 9.73.030(1)(a). Riley urges that State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986) dictates a contrary determination. We disagree. In Gunwall, this court held that a pen register records a private communication under RCW 9.73.106 Wn.2d at 69. A pen register is a device that identif[ies] all local and long distance numbers dialed, whether the call is completed or not. Gunwall, at 63. Although a pen register does not intercept spoken words, it does record an exchange of information  the dialing from one telephone number to another. A pen register is thus comparable in impact to electronic eavesdropping devices in that it ... may affect other persons and can involve multiple invasions of privacy. Gunwall, at 69. In contrast, all that is learned from a tracer is the telephone number of one party, the party dialing. A pen register may therefore be reasonably viewed as recording a private communication, whereas a tracer may not. [12] Assuming, arguendo, that a telephone number constitutes a private communication under RCW 9.73.030, the information obtained from the tracer would still be admissible to corroborate Riley's confessions. RCW 9.73.070 exempts acts performed in the... operations of the common carrier's communications services, facilities, or equipment or incident to the use of such services, facilities or equipment from the provisions of RCW 9.73. Telephone companies must address hacking during their operation and maintenance. Thus, tracing hacking activity constitutes an act performed in the operations of the common carrier's communications services. We hold that RCW 9.73 does not apply because no private communication was recorded via a line trap; and that even if RCW 9.73 did apply, U S West had the authority to establish a line trap pursuant to RCW 9.73.070. [4] Therefore, the information obtained from U S West's tracer may be used to corroborate Riley's admission of having committed the crime of computer trespass against Telco.