State v. Monaghan, 165 Wash. App. 782

In July 2009, Deputy High stopped Monaghan for a stop-sign violation in Whatcom County; two passengers were present in the car.
Deputies checked for an outstanding warrant for one passenger and learned there was one for Fink-Crider; Monaghan was then questioned and a false-statement arrest ensued.
Monaghan waived Miranda rights and consented to a search of the vehicle, initially the passenger compartment, which he did not limit and did not withdraw.
Monaghan also consented to a search of the trunk; in the trunk a zippered container/dictionary/safe was found with a key to the lock.
Deputies opened the safe and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia; Monaghan was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
The trial court denied suppression; on appeal, the court held the locked container search exceeded the scope of consent and violated the state constitution, requiring suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the locked container search exceed consent to search the trunk?	Monaghan	State	Yes; exclusionary rule applies; suppression required
Does Article I, section 7 provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment for this search?	Monaghan	State	Yes; state constitution requires warrant or valid basis; search invalid
Was there implied consent to search the locked safe?	Monaghan	State	No; no evidence of implied consent; not supported

State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761, 224 P.3d 751 (2009) (recognizes privacy interests under article I, section 7)
State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144, 720 P.2d 436 (1986) (locked articles within a container create additional privacy expectations)
State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 101 P.3d 80 (2004) (state constitutional privacy analysis; two-step approach)
State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (enumerates exceptions to the warrant requirement; consent among them)