Opinion ID: 2507169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Search and seizure analysis under article I, section 7

Text: ¶ 17 Our state constitution provides, No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. WASH. CONST. art. I, § 7. It is well established that in some areas, article I, section 7 provides greater protection than its federal counterpartthe Fourth Amendment. State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 29, 60 P.3d 46 (2002); State v. Myrick, 102 Wash.2d 506, 510, 688 P.2d 151 (1984) ([T]he unique language of Const. art. 1, § 7 provides greater protection to persons under the Washington Constitution than U.S. Const. amend. 4 provides to persons generally.). When determining whether article I, section 7 provides greater protection in a particular context, we focus on whether the unique characteristics of the constitutional provision and its prior interpretations compel a particular result. State v. Walker, 157 Wash.2d 307, 317, 138 P.3d 113 (2006). We look to the constitutional text, historical treatment of the interest at stake, relevant case law and statutes, and the current implications of recognizing or not recognizing an interest. Id. ¶ 18 This requires a two-part analysis. First, we must determine whether the state action constitutes a disturbance of one's private affairs. Here that means asking whether requiring a student athlete to provide a urine sample intrudes upon the student's private affairs. Second, if a privacy interest has been disturbed, the second step in our analysis asks whether authority of law justifies the intrusion. The authority of law required by article I, section 7 is satisfied by a valid warrant, limited to a few jealously guarded exceptions. Because the Wahkiakum School District had no warrant, if we reach the second prong of the analysis we must decide whether the school district's activity fits within an exception to the warrant requirement. Relying on federal law, the school district claims there is a special needs exception to the warrant requirement that we should adopt. The York and Schneider parents point out we have not adopted such an exception and urge us not to do so here.