WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT FINDS EVIDENCE OF METH LAB MAY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ILLEGALLY

Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court issued another decision protecting our privacy rights. In State v. Winterstein, the defendant, Winterstein ,was on probation for a gross misdemeanmor and had moved to a new address. Although Winterstein had updated his address with the Department of Corrections, his probation officer did not have the new address. Winterstein was only obligated to notify the Department of Corections (DOC) of the address change.

After the Winterstein failed drug tests and failed to report to his probation officer (PO), the PO decided to pay the defendant a visit at his new address. The PO also received a tip indicating that there was a meth lab at the defendant's old address. As a condition of probation, Winterstein had agreed to be subject to search of his home if the Department of Corrections had reasonable cause to believe that he was violating the terms of probation. The PO arrived at Wintersteins' old address, knocked on the door, and was given permission to enter by one of the residents. The PO searched the house, but never asked for consent to search. In the house, he found methamphetamine paraphernalia and other evidence of the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.

Winterstein's attorney did not find evidence that Winterstein had updated his address with DOC until the trial had already begun and the attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the fact that the PO did not have the authority of law to search Winterstein's old home. The trial court denied the motion and Winterstein was convicted. Wineterstein appealed and the Washington State court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The Washington Supreme Court just ruled that the lower courts applied the wrong standard in determining the legality of the PO's search of Winterstein's old residence. The lower courts had said that all that was needed to justify the warrantless search was reasonable suspicion that Winterstein still lived there. The Washington State Supreme Court rejected that proposition and said that based on the Washington State Constitution, which provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the PO must have probable cause to believe that Winterstein resided at the home that was searched. The decision was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

This does not mean that the conviction will be reversed. The lower court may still find that the PO had probable cause after they apply the appropriate standard. In any event, this is a victory for proponents of laws protecting us from unreasonable searches and seizures.