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

Heading: Does Washington Recognize a Special Needs Exception in Schools?

Text: ¶ 73 We now turn to whether there is a special needs exception to the constitutional authority of law requirement. In Washington, warrantless searches of free adults are per se unreasonable unless fitting within one of the `jealously and carefully drawn' exceptions. State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d 61, 70, 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Houser, 95 Wash.2d 143, 149, 622 P.2d 1218 (1980)); see also majority at 1002-03. However, where the state demonstrates a special need, the authority of law requirement may be satisfied in select cases. Washington common law recognizes special needs in certain areas and has impliedly identified a special environment in public schools, albeit different from that recognized by federal courts. ¶ 74 Blood testing is arguably more invasive than urinalysis, yet we have held that those convicted of sexual crimes (or in the case of juveniles, those adjudicated to have committed sexual offenses) can be tested for HIV due to a special need. See In re Juveniles A, B, C, D, E, 121 Wash.2d 80, 847 P.2d 455 (1993); see also State v. Olivas, 122 Wash.2d 73, 856 P.2d 1076 (1993) (warrantless blood tests of violent and sex offenders are valid under both the United States and Washington Constitutions). Additionally, in State v. Curran, 116 Wash.2d 174, 804 P.2d 558 (1991) ( abrogated on other grounds by State v. Berlin, 133 Wash.2d 541, 548, 947 P.2d 700 (1997)), this court held that blood testing a motorist for intoxication does not violate article I, section 7 if the test is performed in a reasonable manner and there is an indication that it would reveal evidence of intoxication. While the Court of Appeals in Robinson, 102 Wash.App. at 813 n. 50, 10 P.3d 452, recognized that Washington offers higher protection for bodily functions compared to the federal courts, that same court held that the City of Seattle could test those individuals responsible for public safety for drug use without a warrant or individualized suspicion. Id. at 827-28, 10 P.3d 452. This court has not addressed such programs. ¶ 75 In State v. Surge, 160 Wash.2d 65, 156 P.3d 208 (2007), we allowed warrantless DNA sampling of prisoners without individualized suspicion. The majority observes that students are not convicted criminals. Majority at 1005. This is true but not determinative. Clearly, the definitions of constitutional protection and the privacy expectations (private affairs) are different between students and criminals. These distinctions do not determine the entire constitutional analysis, but both groups do have a lowered reasonable expectation of privacy. See Charles W. Johnson, Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update, 28 SEATTLE U.L.REV. 467, 687 (2005) (recognizing a special environments category of searches applicable to public schools, prisons, the international border, and administrative searches). The current statute providing for search of school lockers exemplifies the lower expectation of privacy recognized in schools. RCW 28A.600.220 specifically states: No right nor expectation of privacy exists for any student as to the use of any locker issued or assigned to a student by a school and the locker shall be subject to search for illegal drugs, weapons, and contraband as provided in RCW 28A.600.210 through 28A.600.240. ¶ 76 This statute is just one example of the special environment that Washington has recognized in the school setting. [8] Although the parameters of the public school special environment have not been clearly defined in all areas, the following section concludes a drug testing program based on individualized suspicion is sustainable under article I, section 7.