In Re Nichols, 256 P.3d 1131

Nichols petitioned for postconviction relief challenging his cocaine and marijuana convictions.
A Travelodge desk clerk identified Nichols as the room 56 registrant from a motel registry and a photocopy of his driver’s license.
Police learned Nichols’ driver’s license was suspended and arrested him for driving while suspended after Nichols arrived at the motel.
Drugs and cash were found on Nichols during a search incident to the arrest.
Nichols raised a PRP asserting the motel registry search violated article I, section 7, but the issue was not raised at trial or direct appeal.
The Court of Appeals stayed proceedings pending related issues; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Nichols raise motel registry issue in PRP?	Nichols argues a PRP allows constitutional challenges not raised on direct review.	State contends waiver rules bar new constitutional claims in PRP absent suppression motion.	Yes; constitutional claims can be raised in PRP with prejudice showing.
Retroactivity of Jorden to Nichols PRP?	Jorden applies retroactively to protect privacy interests.	No retroactive application under prior framework.	Jorden applies retroactively.
Did motel registry examination violate article I, section 7?	Jorden-like reasoning controls; registry search is a private affair warrantless intrusion.	The search was justified by individualized suspicion regarding the room 56 activity.	No, not violated; examination consistent with individualized suspicion, thus admissible.
Ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to registry issue?	Counsel failed to argue constitutional violation.	No prejudice since registry search did not violate the constitution.	No merit; Strickland standard not satisfied.

State v. Jorden, 160 Wash.2d 121 (2007) (motel registry private affair; warrantless search questioned)
State v. Surge, 160 Wash.2d 65 (2007) (post- Surge: DNA sampling authority; retroactivity context)
In re Personal Restraint of Hews, 99 Wash.2d 80 (1983) (PRP can raise issues not raised on direct review if prejudice shown)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wash.2d 647 (2004) (PRP procedure; right to challenge under proper standards)
In re Pers. Restraint of Markel, 154 Wash.2d 262 (2005) (PRP standards and procedural posture)
In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wash.2d 876 (1992) (affidavits and development of record in PRP)
State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wash.2d 454 (2007) (exclusionary rule and privacy interests doctrine)
York v. Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200, 163 Wash.2d 297 (2008) (urinalysis drug testing; privacy in school context)
State v. Mesiani, 110 Wash.2d 454 (1988) (random sobriety checkpoints; privacy expectations)
State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103 (1998) (knock-and-talk investigations; warrant considerations)
State v. Leach, 113 Wash.2d 735 (1989) (improper failure to obtain warrant caution)
City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 110 Wash.2d 454 (1988) (public privacy interests in searches)