The conditions of periodic urine testing imposed on the defendants as a condition of pretrial release for DUI were invalid under the state constitution because the defendants did not suffer a diminution in their privacy interests sufficient to justify the highly invasive requirement of urine testing. Citing a case necessarily invokes the constitutional analysis of that case. Blomstrom v. Tripp, 2017 Wash. LEXIS 974 (Oct. 5, 2017).
The entry into plaintiff’s home was by consent and the community caretaking function. Nominal damages for seizing medication wasn’t clear error. Cleveland v. County of Cochise, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19493 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2017).*