When a party claims both state and federal constitutional violations, our courts should first review the State constitutional claim. State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169, 176 (2010).
Article 1, Section 7, generally provides greater protection from state action than does the Fourth Amendment. State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wash.2d 628 (2008) (citing State v. Simpson, 95 Wash.2d 170, 178 (1980)). Although similar, “ ‘the protections guaranteed by Article 1, Section 7 of the state constitution are qualitatively different from those provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.’ “ Id. at 634 (quoting State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26 (2002)). “The Fourth Amendment protects only against ‘unreasonable searches’ by the State, leaving individuals subject to … warrantless, but reasonable searches.” Article 1, Section 7, is unconcerned with the reasonableness of a search, but instead requires a warrant before any search, whether reasonable or not. Id. at 634-35 (citing Const. art. 1, Section 7 (“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”)). “This creates an almost absolute bar to warrantless arrests, searches, and seizures, with only limited exceptions …” State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761, 772 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The distinction between article 1, section 7, and the Fourth Amendment arises because the word “reasonable” does not appear in any form in the text of article 1, section 7, as it does in the Fourth Amendment. “Understanding this significant difference between the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 7 is vital to properly analyze the legality of any search in Washington. Id.
