Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two July 2, 2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 50664-5-II Respondent, PART PUBLISHED OPINION v. DARIN R. VANCE, Appellant. GLASGOW, J. — Based on information received from federal law enforcement, the Vancouver Police Department and Clark County Sheriff’s Office obtained and executed a search warrant for the home of Darin Richard Vance to search for depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Investigators found several such images and ultimately charged Vance with 10 counts of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Following a bench trial, Vance was convicted on all 10 counts. He appeals his convictions and sentence. Vance argues that the search warrant violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. He contends that the warrant was not sufficiently particular, relying on Division One’s decision in State v. McKee, 3 Wn. App. 2d 11, 413 P.3d 1049 (2018), rev’d and remanded, 438 P.3d 528 (2019).1 We hold that the warrant in this case was different from the 1 The issue before the Washington Supreme Court in McKee was whether the proper remedy following suppression of cell phone evidence was to vacate the defendant’s convictions and remand to trial court for further proceedings, or to order all the counts dismissed. 438 P.3d at 530. The court held that the Court of Appeals should have vacated and remanded, rather than dismissing. Id. The Supreme Court did not address whether the warrant was sufficiently particular. Id. No. 50664-5-II one found invalid in McKee and was sufficiently particular to comply with the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7. We address Vance’s remaining arguments in the unpublished portion of this opinion. We affirm Vance’s convictions and sentence. FACTS On August 26, 2010, FBI Special Agent Alfred Burney, working undercover in Detroit, Michigan, used a peer-to-peer file sharing program to download 35 files from a software user with an IP address subscribed to Comcast. At least 20 of those files appeared to be pictures of children engaged in sexually explicit activity. Burney then submitted an administrative subpoena to Comcast requesting all subscriber information for the person using that IP address. Comcast responded that the IP address belonged to Vance. Burney sent this information and the downloaded files to the FBI’s Seattle office. The Seattle FBI office obtained and confirmed Vance’s street address and sent the information and files it received to Investigator Maggi Holbrook of the Vancouver Police Department and the Clark County Sheriff’s Office Digital Evidence Cybercrime Unit. At the time of Burney’s investigation, the FBI was part of an interagency, multi- jurisdictional initiative involving the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. The sheriff’s office’s Cybercrime Unit was a local Internet Crimes Against Children task force, and Holbrook was the local liaison. Burney was not involved with the task force himself. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals