State v. Rose
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentJohnson, J.
(dissenting) — No individual constitutional right is more specifically recognized and protected than the right of an individual to be secure in his or her own home from unreasonable searches and seizures. Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution specifically state as much. The majority gives this right short shrift, finding no expectation of privacy existed as to items located within Rose’s home. The majority errs by failing to properly analyze and apply the open view doctrine; it accomplishes this by…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- State v. WhiteWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. BolandWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. SeagullWashington Supreme Court · 1981
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.