State v. Swetz, 247 P.3d 802

Swetz was convicted of possession of marijuana and a controlled substance (Diazepam).
Officer Osterdahl observed a strong odor of burnt marijuana on Swetz and saw marijuana on the passenger seat inside Swetz's car.
Swetz was arrested for possession of marijuana, Mirandized, then the officer searched the vehicle and found additional marijuana, pipes, and Diazepam.
Swetz argued the warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.
The majority held the search unlawful under Patton and Buelna Valdez and remanded to suppress the evidence.
The dissent argued preserved-record concerns and alternative grounds, including open-view seizure and a warrantless search under different readings of Patton/Valdez.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest violate article I, §7?	Swetz argues search exceeds permissible scope under Patton/Buelna Valdez.	Osterdahl's search is justified by Gant rationale and Swetz's open-view evidence.	Yes; convictions reversed and evidence suppressed; search not justified under article I, §7.
Was the open-view seizure of marijuana and pipes lawful or subject to suppression?	Open-view seizure was justified due to non-protected area and emergent circumstances.	Open-view observations were lawful and seizure appropriate under open-view/exigent circumstances.	Open-view seizure discussed; majority treats it as not independently justifying seizure; focus on search incident to arrest ultimately controls.
Was Swetz's challenge to the search preserved for appellate review?	Swetz can raise suppression issues on appeal per Afana/Patton-Buelna Valdez lines.	Swetz failed to preserve error by not objecting/moving to suppress below.	Majority addresses merits; dissent would require preservation; but result still reverses due to constitutional analysis.

State v. Patton, 167 Wash.2d 379 (2009) (limits vehicle search incident to arrest under art. I, §7 to imminent safety or preservation of evidence)
State v. Buelna Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 (2009) (clarifies that searches must be delayed for warrant absent safety or preservation concerns)
State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 (2010) (allows appeal on suppression issue despite record development; discusses Gant/Patton/Buelna Valdez)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (retroactivity of new rules; direct-review/retroactive application of new constitutional rules)
State v. Wintershein, 167 Wash.2d 620 (2009) (addressing open-view and warrant requirements in Washington cases)
State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1 (1986) (open-view observation in non-protected areas not a search; seizure requires justification)
State v. Seagull, 95 Wash.2d 898 (1981) (open view/plain view distinctions and their impact on searches/seizures)