State Of Washington v. Brittanie Olsen
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtMaxa, J.
¶1 — The State appeals the superior court’s decision to vacate a provision of Brittanie Olsen’s district court sentence requiring her to submit to random urinalysis screens (UAs) as a condition of her misdemeanor probation. The superior court found that a random UA would be an unconstitutional search because it could be required without a well founded suspicion of a probation violation.
¶2 We hold that (1) the district court had the authority, pursuant to RCW 3.66.067 and RCW 46.61.5055, 1 to impose random UAs as a condition of Olsen’s misdemeanor probation, and (2) the random UA probation…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- State v. GunwallWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. CampbellWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. WintersteinWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. WintersteinWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- In Re Juveniles A, B, C, D, EWashington Supreme Court · 1993
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- State of Washington v. Pablo Adiel Munoz-HernandezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2025
- State v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2017
- State v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2017