Seattle Attorneys Blog
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Washington State Constitution provides additional protection, with article I, section 7 protecting individuals from disturbances into their private affairs without authority of law. The Washington Supreme Court recently determined that the administrative booking procedure used in King County violated article I, section 7.
The defendant was charged with a felony in King County. He was not arrested or booked, but summonsed to appear at arraignment.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on his personal recognizance with certain conditions.
Administrative Booking
The state is required to obtain fingerprints, photographs, and other information from all felony defendants. RCW 10.98.050. This usually occurs when a defendant is arrested. If it has not occurred by the preliminary hearing or arraignment, the court must order it. With regard to pretrial releasees, this collection is referred to as “administrative booking” in King County.
RCW 10.98.050 does not describe how or where the collection should occur. Some counties use Livescan devices. According to the Court, the Snohomish County Livescan device is located in the publicly-accessible lobby of the county jail. In King County, however, the devices used for administrative bookings are located in secure areas of the jails, although there is another device on the first floor of the King County Courthouse.
To enter the Kent jail, a person goes through security, which requires them to empty their pockets, go through a metal detector, surrender their weapons, and put their personal items through an X-ray. There are additional security procedures for the defendant to enter the secure booking area.
Prosecutors in King County often ask the defendant to stay in the courtroom after arraignment to be taken to the jail for administrative booking. The defendant must be patted down and put in handcuffs for several minutes to be taken to the booking area. Defendants are “typically detained . . . from 30 minutes to two hours.” They may even be held in a cell until staff is available to finish the administrative booking.
Conflict
In this case, the Superior Court judge in Kent ruled the procedure violated article I, section 7. The same judge had issued a similar order in a previous case, which the state did not appeal.
A superior court judge in Seattle, however, ruled for the state in a similar case, determining pretrial releasees did not have independent state law protections under article I, section 7. She also ruled the King County administrative booking procedure complied with the Fourth Amendment.
Article I, Section 7
The Washington Supreme Court granted review in light of the conflict.
To determine if there has been a violation of article I, section 7, the court considers whether there was a disturbance of the defendant’s private affairs and then whether it was justified under the authority of law. The burden is initially with the defendant to show there was a disturbance into his private affairs, then shifts to the state to show justification.
Intrusion on Private Affairs
The Court noted the potential intrusion in question was not the collection of the identifying data, but the patting down, handcuffing, and detention. The Court further acknowledged that the intrusion was “significant” and that it had previously held pat-downs were “highly intensive” intrusions.
The Court rejected the state’s argument its procedures were “minimally intrusive,” stating “common sense indicates otherwise.” The Court found that, generally, an administrative booking process requiring a person to be patted down, handcuffed, and detained in a jail for as much as 2 hours constituted a “significant intrusion.”
A person’s status may affect their privacy rights. The state argued the defendant’s circumstances were the same as if he had been arrested, because he could have been arrested instead of released pretrial. The Court noted it must consider the defendant’s specific situation, particularly physical custody. It explained that “custody is the key” to intrusions like inventorying property or searching a detainee to prevent contraband. The Court rejected the state’s argument and stated that the adjudicative process does not require a defendant who has not been taken into custody to be patted down, handcuffed, or detained.
The defendant showed his private affairs had been intruded upon.
Authority of Law
The state may show it has authority through a warrant or warrant exception, a court rule, or a constitutional statute.
In this case, the state claimed it had authority of law pursuant to a warrant exception, RCW 10.98.050, and the balancing test under State v. Olsen.
The Court concluded there was not an applicable warrant exception. The State argued the “special needs” and “administrative searches” exceptions to the federal warrant requirement applied. Washington has not recognized “a general special needs exception.” Additionally, the state did not convince the Court to adopt the federal administrative searches exception as state law.
The Court also held that RCW 10.98.050(2) did not provide authority of law for the King County process. The statute does not require administrative bookings to occur in the jail facility.
Under Olsen, a probation condition can constitute authority of law if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The Court noted the Olsen balancing test was adopted was adopted with respect to probationers and had not been applied to defendants who had not been convicted.
The Court assumed without decided the state had a compelling interest in collecting the identifying information. The Court noted the presence of a Livescan device on the first floor of the King County Courthouse, although not used for administrative bookings, suggested there are “less invasive means” of performing administrative bookings. The Court concluded the process was not narrowly tailored.
The Court held the King County administrative booking process violated article I, section 7. It affirmed the order and remanded to the trial court.
Seek Legal Advice
If you are facing criminal charges, a knowledgeable Seattle criminal defense attorney can fight for you to protect your rights. Contact Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562 to schedule a consultation.