Opinion ID: 2631698
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington Precedent is Consistent with the Framers' Intent

Text: ¶ 36 We approvingly cited Justice Brandeis when recognizing the overriding necessity for the protection of privacy interests in certain governmental contexts  such as those involved in discovery proceedings. Rhinehart v. Seattle Times Co., 98 Wash.2d 226, 240, 242, 654 P.2d 673 (1982), aff'd, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984). Further, we declared over 25 years ago that article I, section 7 clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations. State v. Simpson, 95 Wash.2d 170, 178, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980). ¶ 37 Since then the great weight of Washington appellate authority has favored giving full meaning to article I, section 7's express textual mandate that private affairs shall be protected against unwarranted intrusion, whatever the source. See, e.g., State v. Christensen, 153 Wash.2d 186, 200, 102 P.3d 789 (2004) (recognizing Washington's longstanding tradition of affording great protection to individual privacy); State v. Jackson, 150 Wash.2d 251, 259, 76 P.3d 217 (2003) (It is now settled that article I, section 7 is more protective than the Fourth Amendment.); State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26, 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (It is now well settled that the protections guaranteed by article I, section 7 of the state constitution are qualitatively different from those provided by the Fourth Amendment. . . .); State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343, 348-49, 979 P.2d 833 (1999) (Article I, section 7, is explicitly broader than that of the Fourth Amendment as it `clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations' and places greater emphasis on privacy.) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wash.2d 173, 180, 867 P.2d 593 (1994) (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Bradley, 105 Wash.App. 30, 36, 18 P.3d 602, 27 P.3d 613 (2001) (article I, section 7 provides greater protection to an individual's right of privacy than the Fourth Amendment). ¶ 38 In sum, it is clearly evident from the text, framers intent, and resulting precedent, article I, section 7 provides broad protection to citizens of this state, and we must apply it accordingly.