Legal Opinion

State v. Jimenez

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1996No. 62706-1PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, C. J.

— The State of Washington seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision reversing several counts of Respondents’ convictions for delivery and possession of cocaine. The Court of Appeals held that recordings of two drug transactions were not properly authorized under RCW 9.73.230, and following State v. Fjermestad, State v. Salinas, and State v. Gonzalez,1 all evidence obtained during the recordings was inadmissible, notwithstanding the unaided evidence provision in RCW 9.73.230(8). We hold that where law enforcement officers make a genuine effort to comply with the privacy act and intercept a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. FjermestadWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. FafordWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. FafordWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. SalinasWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. GonzalezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. JimenezWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. PorterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
  3. State v. BarronCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  4. State v. BarronCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  5. State v. CostelloCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API