Unlawful Searches & Seizures

Most people do not realize that the Washington State Constitution provides far greater protection against government intrusion than the federal Fourth Amendment. While the federal Constitution evaluates searches under a broad "reasonableness" standard, Washington's constitution—Article I, Section 7—guarantees an explicit right to privacy by declaring:

"No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

This difference is profound.
Washington protects private affairs, not merely against "unreasonable" searches. This conceptual shift is why Washington residents enjoy some of the strongest privacy rights in the United States.

Real-World Examples: Practices Legal Elsewhere Are Unconstitutional in Washington

1. DUI Roadblocks Are Illegal in Washington

Many states permit DUI checkpoints that stop every driver without suspicion. These checkpoints consistently reduce impaired driving and save lives.
But in Washington they are unconstitutional because the government cannot detain people simply to look for evidence of wrongdoing.

2. Random Drug Testing of Student Athletes Is Illegal

Other states permit mandatory drug testing of high-school athletes as a safety measure.
Washington courts rejected this practice, holding that suspicionless searches violate the explicit privacy protections in Article I, Section 7.

3. Sound Transit Fare Inspections Must Comply With Washington's Privacy Protections

Sound Transit fare-enforcement practices have drawn constitutional scrutiny because Washington law does not allow random enforcement actions without lawful authority.
Officers cannot freely approach citizens and demand proof of compliance unless the encounter meets constitutional requirements.
Washington's heightened privacy protections impose strict limits on when and how fare inspectors may interact with passengers, ensuring these interactions do not become de facto detentions or coercive searches.

4. The Washington Supreme Court Has Explicitly Prohibited Government "Fishing Expeditions"

Washington's Supreme Court has made clear that Article I, Section 7 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment and specifically rejects broad, suspicionless investigative tactics.

The Court has emphasized that:

Any governmental search or intrusion must be based on "individual, particularized suspicion of criminal activity based on articulable facts."

And equally important:

Government fishing expeditions are expressly prohibited.

This strict standard is the backbone of Washington's privacy jurisprudence.
It is the reason why random stops, broad sweeps, compliance checks, and "let's see what we find" tactics—practices permitted in many states—are unconstitutional here.

Mr. Merchant relies on these principles extensively when litigating suppression motions across a wide range of criminal cases.

Why Washington Is Different: A Constitution Built to Protect Privacy

These enhanced protections exist because the Washington Constitution expressly guarantees privacy, unlike the U.S. Constitution, which regulates searches primarily through the lens of "reasonableness."

Washington's founders chose stronger language and broader protections. The result:

• Fewer exceptions to the warrant requirement
• Higher standards for stops, detentions, and searches
• More robust remedies, including suppression
• Greater scrutiny of government intrusions
• Frequent exclusion of evidence that would be admissible under federal law

Mr. Merchant leverages these broader protections in every suppression motion he files.

Mr. Merchant's Litigation in Unlawful Search & Seizure Cases

Mr. Merchant has litigated numerous suppression motions in cases involving:

• Vehicle searches
• House searches
• Cell phone and digital-device searches
• Passenger stops
• Pedestrian detentions
• Probable-cause arrests
• Warrantless home entry
• Searches incident to arrest
• Stop-and-frisk scenarios
• Officers exceeding the scope of their authority
• The exclusionary rule and its limits
• Fruits of the poisonous tree
• Vehicle impound searches
• Forensic extractions and digital warrants

He regularly challenges police conduct under both Article I, Section 7 and the Fourth Amendment, seeking dismissal or suppression whenever evidence was obtained unlawfully.

Washington's Evolving Constitutional Law: Uncharted Territory Where Mr. Merchant Pushes the Boundaries

Although Washington has a robust body of privacy law under Article I, Section 7, the Washington Supreme Court has not yet fully defined the scope of several other state constitutional rights. And in these emerging areas, Mr. Merchant is often the attorney laying the foundational arguments.

Here are key areas where Washington's constitution provides broader language—but courts have yet to fully explore these protections:

1. Right to Bear Arms in Self-Defense (Art. I, § 24)

Washington's constitution explicitly states that citizens have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves—language stronger and more explicit than the federal Second Amendment.
Mr. Merchant regularly argues that Washington's constitutional text offers greater protection for firearm possession and self-defense conduct.

2. Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Art. I, § 9)

Washington prohibits compelling a person to "give evidence" against themselves.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits being compelled to "be a witness" against oneself.
"Give evidence" is significantly broader, however our Supreme Court has yet to develop the scope of the greater protection provided, which is why this provision is ripe for litigation.

Mr. Merchant raises these arguments in Miranda litigation, interpreter-error cases, and involuntary statement suppression.

3. Confrontation Rights (Art. I, § 22)

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront witnesses.
Washington goes further: defendants have the right to meet witnesses "face to face."

This stronger constitutional protection has enormous implications for:

• 911 calls
• forensic nurse testimony
• police summaries
• hearsay "excited utterances"
• digital evidence substitution
• unavailable witnesses the State prefers not to call

Mr. Merchant frequently relies on this language to suppress evidence the State hoped to admit without producing witnesses in court.

Developing New Constitutional Law Through Creative Litigation

Because these areas remain underdeveloped in Washington case law, Mr. Merchant's motions often require:

• Original legal analysis
• Historical research
• Detailed comparison of Washington's constitution to the Bill of Rights
• Strategic framing to push Washington courts toward broader interpretations

By raising structural and constitutional arguments in uncharted territory, Mr. Merchant contributes to establishing new protections for persons statewide.

He is not merely invoking existing law—he is helping shape it.

Why Suppression Litigation Matters

When police violate constitutional limits, the remedy is suppression.

A strong suppression motion can control the outcome of the entire case.

Mr. Merchant builds these motions with constitutional depth, creativity, and precision.