Legal Opinion

State Of Washington v. Brittanie Olsen

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 24, 2016No. 46886-7-IIPublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. State v. GunwallWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State v. CampbellWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. WintersteinWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State v. WintersteinWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  5. In Re Juveniles A, B, C, D, EWashington Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State of Washington v. Pablo Adiel Munoz-HernandezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2025
  3. State v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2017
  4. State v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API