Court Opinion

ID: 9626576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:18:04.374407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:30.101516
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result of the majority opinion. Under RCW 9.73.230(6), the law enforcement agency which has received an authorization resulting in the interception or recording of a conversation must submit a report, including the original authorization under subsection (2) of this section, to a judge of a court having jurisdiction. This report shall identify (a) the persons, including the consenting party, who participated in the conversation, and (b) the date, location, and approximate time of the conversation. RCW 9.73.230(7)(a) then provides that
[w]ithin two judicial days of receipt of a report under subsection (6) of this section, the court shall make an ex parte review of the authorization, but not of the evidence, and shall make a determination whether the requirements of subsection (1) of this section were met. . . .
RCW 9.73.230(7)(a). If they are not met, then the recordings and any copies or transcriptions of the conversation or communication are destroyed. There is, then, subsequent judicial determination of whether probable cause exists to believe that the conversátion or communication involves the unlawful manufacture, delivery, sale or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell controlled substances as defined in specified statutes. For this reason, I believe *204the procedure in this case comported with the provisions of article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.