Legal Opinion

City of Pasco v. Shaw

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 2007No. 77195-2Published

1Concurrence 1

*464¶25

Chambers, J.

(concurring) — I cautiously concur because I do not read the majority as eroding the important principles embodied in article I, section 7 of our constitution and as explained in City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260, 270, 868 P.2d 134 (1994). Under our state constitution, “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Const. art. I, § 7. Article I, section 7 protects “ ‘those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass’ ” without a warrant…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Alexander.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. State v. BolandWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  3. City of Seattle v. McCreadyWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. LudvikCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
  5. State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1987

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API