I don't think it was in fact a stricter standard, and I think the Supreme Court agreed when they refused to take the case. If an appellate court had indeed imposed a stricter standard, the SC would have been likely to take the case to clarify the standard. State SCs take a lot more cases than the US does, especially when it's the county that appeals and not the defendant.
What the agent claimed was that on getting a warrant for one property he could go tromping through the woods without any concern for whether he was crossing property lines or entering another person's property. The Court said no you can't.
Washington, I should add, has a stricter privacy provision in its Constitution than the US constitution does. Ours states that "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." That's not an Amendment, it's in Article I, Declaration of Rights, Section 7 of our State Constitution. On many occasions the Courts have declared that this offers more protection than the Federal Constitution does, and that Federal decisions on privacy don't necessarily prevail here. (For example, the US constitution doesn't protect your garbage from inspection with a warrant by the police, but in Washington it is considered part of your private affairs, and the cops can't go rummaging through your garbage without a warrant.)
Thorson's home was clearly invaded without authortity of law. That made it illegal. So a unanimous Court of Appeals held, and that's the decision the SC refused to review. |
