STATE'S HIGH COURT RULING LIMITS POLICE IN SEARCHES

(OLYMPIA) -- The Washington Supreme Court has moved again to limit the
scope of police searches, ruling yesterday that the arrest of a
motorist does not permit officers to search personal items belonging
to passengers who are not under arrest.

A divided court ruled that police searches in three separate cases
from Franklin, Thurston and Kitsap counties violated a right to
privacy that is guaranteed under Article 1 of the state
constitution.

As a result, the court overturned convictions in the cases of Deborah
Lee Parker, Steven Lee Jines and Anna Hunnel; each was arrested for
methamphetamine possession.

In each case, the defendants were passengers in vehicles stopped by
police and searched after the drivers were arrested for various reasons.

Chief Justice Richard Guy dissented, saying the court's majority
opinion creates a rule "that hinders the right of the public to be
assured that law enforcement officers will be able to confidently and
safely do their jobs."

Today's decision is the latest in a series of rulings limiting police
power. In the past 17 months, the high court has ruled that:

Police cannot stop a motorist for a minor infraction in order to check
out suspected criminal activity.

Police must tell citizens they have the right to refuse a warrantless
search of their homes.

Police must obtain a warrant before searching the trunk of an
impounded vehicle, even when police have access to the trunk release
in the vehicle's interior. In the latest cases, the court said police
searches of the vehicles' passengers violated Article 1, section 7, of
the state constitution, which reads: "No person shall be disturbed in
his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

Justice Charles Johnson, writing for the majority, cited a 1922 ruling
in arguing that the court has long held that the right to be free from
governmental intrusion into a person's "private affairs" includes
automobiles and their contents.

"Likewise, vehicle passengers hold an independent, constitutionally
protected privacy interest. This interest is not diminished merely
upon stepping into an automobile with others," Johnson wrote.

Prosecutors argued that the personal possessions of passengers -- in
these cases, a jacket and two purses -- were "containers" within the
vehicles and were thus legitimately subject to search regardless of
whether they belonged to the people who were initially arrested.

In addition, searching non-arrested passengers is necessary to protect
police officers, the prosecutors said.

Johnson, however, said the court must weigh officer safety and
criminal evidence concerns "against the basic notion that the people
of this state enjoy a measure of privacy that is, and will forever be,
unassailable."

He added that police still retain the ability to "control the scene,"
including the authority to order passengers in or out of a vehicle as
necessary.