State v. Olsen, 93315-4

Background

Brittanie Olsen pleaded guilty (June 2014) to one count of DUI and received 364 days with 334 days suspended; a probation condition prohibited alcohol, marijuana, and nonprescribed drugs.
Over defense objection, the district court also ordered Olsen to submit to random urine analysis (UA) screens to ensure compliance.
The superior court vacated the UA requirement, holding random, suspicionless UAs of misdemeanant probationers require well‑founded suspicion; the State appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding DUI probationers lack a privacy interest preventing random UA testing to enforce no‑use conditions.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review to decide whether random UAs of DUI probationers violate Article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution.
The Court held that although UAs implicate privacy, random UAs narrowly tailored to monitor compliance with a valid no‑drug/alcohol probation condition and imposed on a probationer with a reduced expectation of privacy are authorized by law and do not violate Article I, § 7.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether random, suspicionless urinalysis of a DUI probationer violates Art. I, § 7	Olsen: UAs disturb private affairs and require well‑founded suspicion to be constitutional	State: DUI probationers have reduced privacy; UAs to enforce probation may be done without individualized suspicion	Held: UAs do implicate privacy, but are permissible here because they were narrowly tailored to enforce a valid probation condition and thus conducted with "authority of law"
Whether probationer status eliminates any privacy interest in bodily fluids	Olsen: Reduced expectation of privacy does not eliminate Article I, § 7 protection for bodily fluids	State: Probationers lack any privacy interest in urine (relying on analogy to DNA/statutory contexts)	Held: Probationers retain a reduced but real privacy interest in urine; Surge does not eliminate the interest because DNA collection there was for identification only
Standard for evaluating authority of law under Art. I, § 7 for bodily‑fluid testing of probationers	Olsen: Searches of probationers should require at least reasonable suspicion to avoid arbitrary intrusions	State: A compelling state interest and narrow tailoring suffice due to rehabilitative and public‑safety needs	Held: Court adopts a balancing approach—compelling state interest narrowly achieved—recognizing probationers’ reduced privacy and upholding random UAs in these circumstances
Scope limits and safeguards on random UAs	Olsen/ACLU: Random UAs risk exploratory fishing and could be used beyond their legitimate scope without individualized suspicion	State: UA scope is limited by judgment and sentence (testing only for alcohol/drugs) and by requirement tests be reasonably conducted	Held: Testing here is limited to monitoring alcohol and controlled substances tied to DUI offense; random UAs would be impermissible if not sufficiently connected to a valid condition or conducted unreasonably

Key Cases Cited

York v. Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200, 163 Wn.2d 297 (Wash. 2008) (heightened Article I, § 7 protection for bodily‑function testing; struck down suspicionless student athlete drug tests)
In re Juveniles A., B., C., D., E., 121 Wn.2d 80 (Wash. 1993) (upheld nonconsensual HIV testing of felons under Fourth Amendment analysis)
State v. Olivas, 122 Wn.2d 73 (Wash. 1993) (upheld compelled blood/DNA testing in felony context)
State v. Surge, 160 Wn.2d 65 (Wash. 2007) (plurality) (upheld DNA collection statute for felons for identification; discussed privacy limits)
State v. Jorden, 160 Wn.2d 121 (Wash. 2007) (Article I, § 7 inquiry focuses on historical protection and nature/extent of information obtained)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (urinalysis/blood testing can reveal intimate medical facts; federal special‑needs analysis informing balancing of privacy and governmental interests)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1987) (probationary search jurisprudence recognizing state supervisory interests)
State v. Williams, 97 Wn. App. 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (upheld probation condition authorizing breath/blood/urinalysis to monitor alcohol/drug compliance)