Opinion ID: 1243792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Definition of Private Conversations or Communications

Text: Under RCW 9.73.030, the protections of the Privacy Act apply only to private communications or conversations. Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Dep't, 119 Wash.2d 178, 189, 829 P.2d 1061 (1992). To the extent that the recordings here did not involve private conversations or communications, the trial courts properly admitted the tapes into evidence. The Court of Appeals in D.J.W. found the conversations were not private because the petitioners were vendors of merchandise selling their wares on a public street to anyone who wished to be a customer. Just as a clerk in a store would be willing to engage in a conversation about a product with any customer who happened by, so did the [defendants] manifest a willingness to engage in a conversation with any prospective buyer. 76 Wash.App. at 141, 882 P.2d 1199. We agree. A conversation between a person and a stranger on a public street about a routine sale of illegal drugs is not private and is not protected under RCW 9.73. The Legislature did not define the term private in RCW 9.73. Washington appellate courts have addressed that term by analyzing under the circumstances of a particular case whether a given conversation or communication was private. In Kadoranian, we determined the intent or reasonable expectations of the participants as manifested by the facts and circumstances of each case controls as to whether a conversation is private. Kadoranian, 119 Wash.2d at 190, 829 P.2d 1061 (quoting State v. Forrester, 21 Wash.App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978), review denied, 92 Wash.2d 1006 (1979)). [13] We ruled that the term private was to be given its ordinary and usual meaning: belonging to one's self ... secret ... intended only for the persons involved (a conversation) ... holding a confidential relationship to something ... a secret message: a private communication ... secretly: not open or in public. Id. at 189-90, 829 P.2d 1061. Whether a particular conversation is private is a question of fact, but where the facts are undisputed and reasonable minds could not differ, the issue may be determined as a matter of law. Kadoranian, 119 Wash.2d at 190, 829 P.2d 1061. In deciding whether a particular conversation is private, we consider the subjective intentions of the parties to a conversation. State v. Faford, 128 Wash.2d 476, 910 P.2d 447 (1996) (expectation of privacy in use of cordless phone). But our inquiry does not stop there because any defendant will contend that his or her conversation was intended to be private. We also look to other factors bearing upon the reasonable expectations and intent of the participants. Duration and subject matter of the conversation. In Kadoranian, a citizen answered a telephone call from a stranger, told the caller that her father was not home, and then took a message. This very abbreviated conversation was not private because the nature of the information conveyed to the stranger indicated it was not intended or reasonably expected to be kept secret. Kadoranian, 119 Wash.2d at 190-91, 829 P.2d 1061. Similarly, in State v. Riley, 121 Wash.2d 22, 33-34, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993), we held that a line trap used to obtain the telephone number of an alleged computer hacker did not violate RCW 9.73. The telephone number did not constitute a private conversation under the statute. See also State v. Bonilla, 23 Wash. App. 869, 873, 598 P.2d 783 (1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Act in telling police of murder because a reasonable person would expect the conversation to be reported to other police officers). Location of Conversation and Presence or Potential Presence of a Third Party. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that takes place at a meeting where one who attended could reveal what transpired to others. State v. Slemmer, 48 Wash.App. 48, 53, 738 P.2d 281 (1987). Similarly, a conversation on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby is not private. State v. Flora, 68 Wash.App. 802, 806, 845 P.2d 1355 (1992). In Flora, two citizens recorded two police officers who allegedly were harassing one of the citizens on a public street within sight or hearing of passersby. The notion of privacy entails a matter into which there should not be prying or intrusion, and that the thing into which there is intrusion or prying must be, and be entitled to be, private. Flora, 68 Wash.App. at 808, 845 P.2d 1355 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jeffers v. City of Seattle, 23 Wash.App. 301, 315, 597 P.2d 899 (1979)). The officers in Flora had no personal privacy interest in statements made as public officers effectuating an arrest in public. Id. at 807, 845 P.2d 1355. In general, the presence of another person during the conversation means that the matter is not secret or confidential. [14] The fact that a transaction is conducted with the public has been enough for us to find that such transaction is not private, even when the transaction takes place inside a private home, a location normally afforded maximum privacy protection. State v. Hastings, 119 Wash.2d 229, 233, 830 P.2d 658 (1992). A person has no expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a home where illegal business is openly conducted. Id. at 232, 830 P.2d 658. Role of the Nonconsenting Party and His or Her Relationship to the Consenting Party. The nonconsenting party's apparent willingness to impart the information to an unidentified stranger evidences the non-private nature of the conversation. Kadoranian, 119 Wash.2d at 190, 829 P.2d 1061. In State v. Goucher, 124 Wash.2d 778, 784, 881 P.2d 210 (1994), the defendant telephoned his cocaine supplier's house and arranged to buy cocaine from the person who answered the telephone, a police officer conducting a search. We concluded the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he voluntarily exposed his desire to buy drugs to a stranger and, thus, ran the risk that such stranger might provide others access to the conversation. Id. at 786, 881 P.2d 210. A communication is not private where anyone may turn out to be the recipient of the information or the recipient may disclose the information. State v. Wojtyna, 70 Wash.App. 689, 695-96, 855 P.2d 315 (1993) (transmittal of telephone number to pager device not a private communication because the information would be received by anyone in possession of the pager), review denied, 123 Wash.2d 1007, 869 P.2d 1084 (1994). `[W]hat is voluntarily exposed to the general public' is not considered part of a person's private affairs, Goucher, 124 Wash.2d at 784, 881 P.2d 210 (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wash.2d 173, 182, 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). While each of these factors is significant in making a factual determination as to whether a conversation is private, the presence or absence of any single factor is not conclusive for the analysis.