Court Opinion

ID: 9534034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:36:26.332815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:22.266386
License: Public Domain

*754Williams, J.*
(dissenting)—I dissent. The officers neither intruded upon Nalder's "legitimate expectation of privacy" (Fourth Amendment) nor disturbed him in his "private affairs" (article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution). A public toilet is a public toilet. That Nalder had a "high expectation of privacy" when using the Southcenter toilet is simply not true. Rather, the only reasonable expectation for him was that in the ordinary course of events he would relieve himself in the presence of other members5 of the public similarly situated either at a urinal fully exposed or while sitting on the toilet. A partial toilet door might protect the user from possible assault, he then being in a particularly vulnerable position, but it does not create a private sanctuary for illicit behavior.
The two constitutional provisions are among the most noble ever devised to protect and preserve the dignity and integrity of the individual human being. To use them in this ludicrous way as a shield for unsocial, criminal conduct in a public rest room trivializes and demeans them.

Judge Ward Williams is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals pursuant to CAR 21(c).

 This discourse is of necessity confined to the male gender.