State V Carpentieri Continued

Lawyers, judges, and law students know that appellate decisions shape the law. Each one provides guidance for future cases. So when an appeals court issues a split decision, it often leaves the law unclear. That’s what happened in State v. Carpentieri, a 2019 case about police searches. The Washington Supreme Court split 4-4, leaving lower courts without binding precedent.

This article reviews the background, opinions, and implications of Carpentieri. It’s an interesting study in judicial philosophy and the challenges of applying old laws to new technologies. As you’ll see, the evenly-divided Court left Washington privacy law in limbo.

The Opinions

The Court split 4-4, so the Court of Appeals decision stood. But the split revealed sharp divisions over privacy protections.

The lead opinion by Justice Charles Johnson upheld the search. He wrote that police acted reasonably by waiting over an hour for Carpentieri to return. And since they had a valid warrant, consent wasn’t legally required. Justice Johnson stressed that warrants grant police authority to enter homes, even if residents aren’t present. As he put it, “the warrant itself provides the necessary lawful authority to enter and search.”

But Justice Mary Yu’s dissent called the search unconstitutional. She argued police couldn’t rely on the warrant alone once they learned Carpentieri wasn’t home. At that point, consent or exigent circumstances were needed to justify entry. And neither existed here. Justice Yu warned the lead opinion weakened privacy rights, especially for marginalized groups. She said it “opens the door for the State to conduct warrantless searches of private homes.”

Two other dissenting opinions echoed Justice Yu’s concerns. Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote, “the lead opinion eviscerates the constitutional rule that homes are sacred and warrant special protection.” And Justice Barbara Madsen said it “diminishes the protections guaranteed by our constitution.”

The Implications

Because Carpentieri ended in a tie, it doesn’t bind lower courts. But it highlights key legal issues that future cases will need to resolve:

• Scope of Warrants – When police learn a resident isn’t home, does a search warrant still authorize entry? The split opinions suggest Washington courts will continue debating this. Justice Johnson’s view grants broad authority under warrants. But the dissents favor greater privacy protections when residents are absent.
• Consent – When is resident consent required to execute a search warrant? The lead opinion implies police with a warrant need no consent. But the dissenters believe consent is required if residents aren’t present. This issue will likely recur until the Court establishes clearer rules.
• Exigent Circumstances – What emergency conditions justify warrantless home searches? The Carpentieri opinions hinted at different standards. Resolution may require more cases that define exigency in various contexts.
• Pretext – How can courts prevent pretextual warrant searches aimed at absent residents? Justice Yu worried the lead opinion enables pretextual searches of marginalized groups like religious and ethnic minorities. Future cases will need to address pretext concerns.
• Technology – How should evolving technologies like smartphones affect search rules? Police used Carpentieri’s cellphone to determine he wasn’t home. But the opinions didn’t explore how technology impacts residents’ presence and police search powers. This emerging issue requires guidance.

Key Takeaways

• Carpentieri shows Washington’s privacy protections remain unsettled, especially regarding warrant execution procedures and home searches.
• Appellate decisions that end in ties, like Carpentieri, leave the law unclear. This creates challenges for police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and defendants.
• Advancing technologies raise new legal questions not addressed in old precedents. Carpentieri illustrates the need to update search rules for the digital age.
• A divided court can’t provide guidance. So privacy standards will remain uncertain until Washington’s Supreme Court establishes decisive precedent in a future case.

The Carpentieri tie left Washington privacy law stuck in limbo. Police still lack clear rules for executing warrants, especially when residents are absent. And the growth of cellphones and smart home devices raises new issues that old cases never contemplated. It will fall to future courts to provide decisive guidance. Appellate judges shape the law through their decisions – but only when they can agree. When it comes to privacy rights, the Washington Supreme Court’s split means the law remains unsettled.