Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Overview

In Washington State, RCW 9.73.030 regulates the interception, recording, and divulging of private communications. The statute generally prohibits recording private conversations without obtaining the consent of all parties involved. Evidence obtained in violation of this law is typically inadmissible in court. This article explores the case of State v. Morris Kamara, where the defendant appealed his conviction for rape in the second degree, arguing that an audio recording made by the victim violated the privacy act.

Case Summary: State v. Morris Kamara

Facts of the Case:

  • Background: Morris Kamara met B.T. at a mutual friend’s birthday party. They communicated via Facebook, and eventually, B.T. agreed to meet Kamara despite initial reluctance.
  • Incident: On the night of the incident, Kamara took B.T. to his apartment, where he made unwanted sexual advances. B.T. activated a recording app on her phone, which later captured the assault.
  • Legal Proceedings: Kamara was charged with second-degree rape. At trial, Kamara moved to suppress the audio recording, claiming it was a private conversation recorded without his consent, thus violating RCW 9.73.030.

Court’s Analysis:

  • Trial Court Ruling: The trial court reviewed the recording and determined that the portion capturing the assault was not a private conversation but rather evidence of a crime. Consequently, this part of the recording was admitted at trial.
  • Appeal: Kamara appealed, arguing the entire recording should be suppressed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, noting that the recorded sounds of the assault did not constitute a conversation under the privacy act.

Key Legal Points:

  1. Definition of Conversation:
    • The court used the ordinary meaning of “conversation” as an oral exchange or discussion.
    • The recording’s final minutes, which captured the assault, did not fit this definition.
  2. Precedent:
    • The court referenced State v. Smith, where a recording of a violent act was deemed not to be a conversation.
    • Similarly, in State v. John Smith, a recording of an assault was admitted because it did not constitute a conversation.
  3. Privacy Act Exceptions:
    • Certain communications, such as those conveying threats or involving emergency situations, can be recorded with the consent of one party.
    • The trial court’s alternate ruling suggested that if the recording were considered a conversation, it would fall under the exception for communications by a hostage holder.

The Kamara case underscores the importance of understanding what constitutes a “conversation” under RCW 9.73.030. Recordings of non-conversational sounds, such as those capturing criminal acts, may be admissible in court despite the privacy act’s general prohibitions.

Why Hire Blanford Law

Navigating the complexities of Washington’s privacy laws requires expertise. Blanford Law provides experienced legal representation to help individuals understand their rights and obligations under RCW 9.73.030. Whether you are facing charges involving recorded communications or need assistance with legal defenses, Blanford Law offers comprehensive support and expert guidance.

You can read the text of State v. Morris Kamara here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/844733.pdf

Review our client resources here

Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.

About Blanford Law:

We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions.  If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com