Introduction

The case of The State of Washington v. Bradley M. Boland (115 Wn.2d 571) reached the Supreme Court of Washington on November 15, 1990. Bradley M. Boland was prosecuted for the unlawful possession of legend drugs and possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver, based on evidence obtained from warrantless searches of his garbage can. Initially dismissed by the Superior Court for Jefferson County, the prosecution succeeded in reversing the dismissal at the Court of Appeals, which held that under the U.S. Constitution, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left outside the curtilage of a residence. However, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming that under the Washington State Constitution, Boland had a protectable privacy interest in his garbage, necessitating the exclusion of evidence obtained without a warrant.

Summary of the Judgment

The Washington Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, held that Bradley M. Boland possessed a privacy interest in his garbage under the Washington State Constitution, specifically Const. art. 1, § 7. This interpretation extended greater privacy protections than those afforded under the federal Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the court excluded the evidence obtained from the warrantless searches of Boland's garbage can and reinstated the dismissal of the charges against him.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court examined several key precedents to reach its decision:

• CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left at the curb for collection under the Fourth Amendment.
• STATE v. GUNWALL, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1986): Established six criteria to determine if a state constitution provides greater privacy protections than the federal constitution.
• STATE v. HEMPELE, 576 N.J. 182 (1990): Held that some state constitutions offer broader privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment.
• STATE v. FASSLER, 108 Ariz. 586 (1972): Determined that trash searches do not violate the Arizona Constitution when conducted without a warrant.
• STATE v. BONDS, 98 Wn.2d 1 (1982) and STATE v. WHITE, 97 Wn.2d 92 (1982): Discussed the objectives and mandatory nature of the exclusionary rule in Washington.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed the six nonexclusive neutral criteria from Gunwall to evaluate whether the Washington State Constitution offers greater privacy protection than the federal Constitution:

1. The textual language of the constitutions.
2. Differences in the texts.
3. Constitutional history.
4. Preexisting state law.
5. Structural differences.
6. Matters of particular state or local concern.

Upon analysis, the court focused primarily on the fourth and sixth factors:

• Preexisting State Law: The court identified local ordinances in Port Townsend and Seattle that implied a privacy interest in garbage by regulating the placement and access to trash cans.
• Matters of Particular State or Local Concern: Citing CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, the court recognized that states have the autonomy to interpret privacy rights independently, allowing Washington to extend privacy protections to garbage.

Distinguishing state constitutional provisions from federal ones, the court emphasized that Washington's constitution focuses on "private affairs" infringed by government actions, rather than solely on objective expectations of privacy. This broader interpretation permitted the recognition of a privacy interest in garbage, contrary to federal precedents.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases within Washington State. By establishing that the state constitution provides enhanced privacy protections for garbage compared to the federal Constitution, law enforcement agencies in Washington must obtain a warrant before conducting searches of a person's garbage can. This decision potentially sets Washington apart from other jurisdictions, aligning it with states like New Jersey but contrasting with the majority of federal and state courts that follow Greenwood.

Furthermore, the decision reinforces the importance of state constitutions in providing broader civil liberties protections, encouraging individuals to examine and utilize state-specific rights beyond federal guarantees.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that mandates the removal of unlawfully obtained evidence from trial. Its primary purpose is to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights during the investigation process.

Privacy Interest

A privacy interest refers to an individual's right to keep certain aspects of their personal life and property free from governmental intrusion. In this case, the court recognized a privacy interest in the contents of Boland's garbage can.

Warrantless Search

A warrantless search occurs when law enforcement conducts a search without obtaining a search warrant from a judge. Under the U.S. Constitution, such searches are generally prohibited unless specific exceptions apply.

Six Nonexclusive Neutral Criteria

Outlined in Gunwall, these criteria help determine whether a state constitution extends greater privacy protections than the federal Constitution. They include textual analysis, historical context, existing state laws, and the relevance of state-specific concerns.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in The State of Washington v. Bradley M. Boland marks a pivotal moment in the state's constitutional law, affirming that individuals possess a protectable privacy interest in their garbage under the Washington State Constitution. This ruling underscores the autonomy of state constitutions to extend broader civil liberties and sets a precedent that law enforcement must adhere to stricter standards when conducting searches. By mandating the exclusion of evidence obtained from warrantless garbage searches, the court reinforces the sanctity of personal privacy and ensures that governmental intrusion is appropriately regulated within the state.