State v. Swetz, 247 P.3d 802

Swetz was convicted of possession of Diazepam and marijuana after a warrantless vehicle search incident to his arrest.
Officer Osterdahl smelled burnt marijuana, observed marijuana on Swetz’s vehicle passenger seat and pipes on the floor after Swetz approached during a bear rumor report.
Swetz was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car before officers searched the vehicle and found additional drugs and paraphernalia.
Swetz challenged the vehicle search as a violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution; the trial court did not suppress evidence.
On appeal, the court addressed whether the search incident to arrest violated article I, section 7, and whether any open-view or exigent-circumstance bases could justify seizure.
The majority reverses and remands to suppress the evidence, holding the search exceeded the scope allowed by article I, section 7.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest violates article I, section 7	Swetz contends the search exceeded the scope permitted by article I, section 7.	Swetz recognizes Gant allows some search bases but argues Washington limits apply more narrowly than Patton/Buelna Valdez.	Yes; search violated article I, section 7; convictions reversed and remanded to suppress evidence.
Whether the open-view seizure of marijuana and pipes was lawful	Open-view seizure can be justified if exigent circumstances exist and there was probable cause.	State did not prove exigent circumstances; majority notes the record is undeveloped for this issue.	Not necessary to reach; record undeveloped; suppression affirmed on the underlying search issue.
Whether Swetz preserved the suppression challenge for appeal	Swetz did not preserve at trial, but argues manifest constitutional error on appeal.	State contends preservation was required and Swetz failed to object below.	Court proceeds to merits; ultimately adopts reasoning that manifest error supports review, but the ultimate remedy rests on suppression.

Patton v. State, 167 Wash.2d 379 (2009) (limits vehicle search incident to arrest under article I, section 7)
Buelna Valdez v. State, 167 Wash.2d 761 (2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest requires warrant unless safety or evidence concerns prevent delay)
Afana v. State, 169 Wash.2d 169 (2010) (vehicle search under state constitution violates article I, section 7 even with incomplete record)
State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1 (1986) (open view observations not searches; seizure requires separate justification)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest basis; limits in vehicle context)