The Files Are In The Computer; State v. Cates and “Plain View”
Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution (see p. 5) states that “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” The case of State v. Cates grapples with whether a community custody condition permitting a community corrections officer (CCO) to inspect the files of an individual under community supervision is facially valid under article I, section 7.
After being convicted of two counts of first degree rape of a child and two counts of first degree child molestation, Michael Cates was sentenced to 25 years of incarceration to be followed by another three years of community supervision. One of the conditions of his community supervision would permit Cates’s CCO to visually inspect his computer, as well as the contents of its files. Cates appealed this part of his sentence on the grounds that this type of search is unconstitutional, but it was affirmed since the matter was not “ripe for review” (i.e. the Court found that this conditions constitutionality should not come into question until one of these questionable searches actually occurs, and Cates is not set to be released from prison for another 20+ years).
The second half of Justice Fairhurst’s dissent argues that the search in question is unconstitutional, facially invalid, and the condition of Cates’s judgment and sentence permitting it be overturned. Justice Fairhurst based her conclusion on a two-part analysis looking at: 1) whether the government has disturbed his (Cates’s) private affairs, and 2) whether that disturbance is authorized by law. Citing cases previously decided by the Washington State Supreme Court which determined that reviewing such things as bank records and text messages constituted “disturbing private affairs,” Justice Fairhurst demonstrated that if bank records and text messages should be private, then a device which can access both, and so much more, should be afforded at the least the same amount of privacy if not more.
The Supreme Court appears to have kicked the can down the road, as Cates’s challenge and many more like his will reach the courts soon as our legal system grapples with the balance between privacy and community safety in a world where more and more of our private information is accessible through our digital devices.
