Opinion ID: 2622136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Characterization of article I, section 7 protections

Text: ś 91 We have held that it is no longer necessary to analyze the factors set out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54, 64, 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether it is appropriate to conduct an independent state constitutional analysis under article I, section 7 with regard to search and seizure questions. State v. Jackson, 150 Wash.2d 251, 259, 76 P.3d 217 (2003). Therefore, I agree with the majority that it is appropriate for us to analyze this case under article I, section 7. However, I disagree with its conclusion that article I, section 7 does not provide greater protection in the context of this case. ś 92 We have explicitly recognized that article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution [1] is more protective than the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. [2] Jackson, 150 Wash.2d at 259, 76 P.3d 217. This court's article I, section 7 inquiry is at once more extensive and affords greater protection of privacy than the Fourth Amendment. State v. Cheatam, 150 Wash.2d 626, 642, 81 P.3d 830 (2003). Rather than applying the Fourth Amendment's emphasis on citizens' `subjective privacy expectations . . . due to well publicized advances in surveillance technology,' article I, section 7 protection emphasizes an individual's objective expectation of privacy. State v. Young, 123 Wash.2d 173, 181, 867 P.2d 593 (1994) (quoting State v. Myrick, 102 Wash.2d 506, 511, 688 P.2d 151 (1984)). Because article I, section 7 protects objective expectations of privacy, this court applies a  more expansive interpretation to article I, section 7 than to the Fourth Amendment. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d at 65, 720 P.2d 808 (emphasis added). ś 93 In other words, whereas Fourth Amendment protection `operates on a downward ratcheting mechanism of diminishing expectations of privacy, article I, section 7, holds the line by pegging the constitutional standard to those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant.' Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash.App. 795, 819, 10 P.3d 452 (2000) (quoting State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343, 349, 979 P.2d 833 (1999) (quoting Myrick, 102 Wash.2d at 511, 688 P.2d 151)). In effect, the enhanced protections provided by article I, section 7 create a relationship between article I, section 7 and the Fourth Amendment in which article I, section 7 builds upon Fourth Amendment protections in many contexts. ś 94 The majority demonstrates its understanding of the relationship between article I, section 7 and the Fourth Amendment by acknowledging that the federal constitution provides a minimum level of protection against intrusions into an individual's private affairs. However, it misrepresents that relationship by limiting its article I, section 7 analysis to Athan's saliva while giving no consideration to his DNA. Majority at 33. ś 95 As I demonstrate below, we must focus our inquiry under article I, section 7 on Athan's privacy interests in both his saliva and his DNA and on the protection provided to those interests. [3]