Wash. Const. art. I, § 7
-
Introduction
Washington’s constitution, Wash. Const. art. I, § 7, explicitly recognizes a right to individual privacy in its text.1 This law has been interpreted to protect a person from invasions of privacy into their personal affairs by the State (e.g. interference through government action), and not by other private parties. The law is mostly referenced in cases centered on alleged warrantless searches. This constitutional clause recognizes a right to privacy with “no express limitations” and “places greater emphasis on privacy than does the Fourth Amendment.”2
-
Text of the Statute(s)
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
-
Cases
Research is ongoing. A search of Washington cases citing this law did not reveal any cases that are factually relevant or analogous to WMC’s target situations. The seminal case citing this law concludes that the “right to privacy” observed under the Washington Constitution provides greater protection from unwarranted and unwanted state action than the federal Constitution.3
-
State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593 (1994) (en banc)
-
Procedural Posture: Procedural Posture: Washington Supreme Court accepted defendant’s petition for review of a decision affirming his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
Law: Wash. Const. art. I, § 7 (protection of private affairs and protection from warrantless invasion of home)
-
Relevant Facts: Defendant appealed from conviction which followed court decision denying motion to suppress evidence obtained from police officers’ use of an infrared camera that revealed marijuana in defendant’s home.
-
Outcome: The court reversed the conviction and determined that warrantless infrared surveillance violated Washington State Constitution and Fourth Amendment. Without the information obtained through the search, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause to allow the officers to search defendant’s home.
-
Special Notes: Washington decisions have noted that the home “receives heightened constitutional protection,”4 because the home is a private place.
-
-
-
Practice Pointers
-
This constitutional clause has most often been cited in the context of motions to suppress following alleged warrantless searches by the State, and it will likely not be a useful tool for a WMC victim. However, it does highlight Washington’s strong interest in the right to privacy.
-