{"id":6605,"date":"2012-03-31T14:17:16","date_gmt":"2012-01-30T00:04:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-29T18:16:24","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6605","title":{"rendered":"WA recognizes a locked safe in a car trunk has an added level of privacy under state constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant consented to a search of his car and its trunk, but the officer opened a locked safe within the trunk from the key on the car key ring. This search violated the differently worded “private affairs” clause of the Washington Constitution because of the added layer of constitutional protection recognized there in locked places in cars. State v. Monaghan<\/a>, 266 P.3d 222 (Wash. App. 2012):<\/p>\n

\u00b620 As the supreme court recently stated in State v. Valdez, the first question in an inquiry under article 1, section 7, is whether the state action constitutes a disturbance of one’s private affairs. There is no dispute that the search of the trunk, as described in the above findings, constituted such a disturbance. Likewise, the search of the locked container, which is described in the above findings, also disturbed the private affairs of Monaghan.<\/p>\n

\u00b621 As the trial court in this case correctly stated at the suppression hearing, the parties agreed that there was no request by either deputy to search the inside of the locked container. This is significant in Washington. In State v. Stroud, the supreme court gave \u201clocking articles within a container\u201d of a vehicle \u201cadditional privacy expectations\u201d under article 1, section 7. This is in marked contrast to the federal standard under the Fourth Amendment, which permits a warrantless search of both locked and unlocked containers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Note: Few state constitutions read like Washington’s so this wouldn’t be much authority in another state.]<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s car was lawfully impounded by the police, and he had an expensive stereo system in the car, so the officer was obliged to inventory the car to protect against loss claims while defendant was in detention. State v. Tyler<\/a>, 166 Wn. App. 202, 269 P.3d 379 (2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6605\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}