State v. Dane
Court of Appeals of Washington
1DissentHunt, J.
I respectfully dissent. Because prison visitors voluntarily subject themselves to possible searches as a condition of entry into a secured correctional facility, they have diminished expectations of privacy. I disagree that the exclusionary rule applies to prison guards’ failure to follow WAC procedures for searching prison visitors, especially for conjugal or other contact visits. Even if the exclusionary rule were applicable in such cases, it does not justify suppressing evidence here because no WAC procedures were violated.
Here the guards violated no WACs. The majority and Mrs. Dane agree…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. Charles Davis AKA Marcus AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- City of Seattle v. McCreadyWashington Supreme Court · 1994
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.