## Facts

- Brittanie J. Olsen pleaded guilty in district court to driving under the influence (DUI), a gross misdemeanor under Washington law.
- The court imposed 364 days of confinement, suspending 334 days subject to probationary conditions.
- As probation conditions, the court ordered Olsen not to consume alcohol, marijuana, or nonprescribed drugs.
- Over Olsen’s objection, the court also required her to submit to random urinalysis testing to monitor compliance with the no-use conditions.
- Olsen challenged the random testing as an unconstitutional warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.
- The superior court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the random testing condition.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding DUI probationers lacked a privacy interest in preventing random urine testing used to enforce substance-abstinence conditions.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether random, suspicionless urinalysis testing imposed as a DUI probation condition is an unreasonable search under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution (and the Fourth Amendment).
2. Whether article I, section 7 requires a “well-founded suspicion” of a probation violation before urinalysis testing may be compelled.
3. Whether a valid probation order supplies “authority of law” sufficient to permit random urinalysis to enforce a valid no-use probation condition.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the random urinalysis condition.
- The court held that urinalysis testing is a search and implicates a probationer’s privacy interests, though those interests are reduced due to probationary status.
- The court rejected a categorical requirement of individualized, well-founded suspicion where testing is conducted pursuant to a valid and appropriately related probation condition.
- The court concluded the random testing was supported by “authority of law” because it was imposed by a valid sentencing order to enforce a valid abstinence condition tied to a DUI conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Urinalysis testing is a search, but a probationer’s expectation of privacy is diminished due to conditional liberty.
- Under article I, section 7, a lawfully imposed probation condition and sentencing order can provide “authority of law” for intrusions that would otherwise require a warrant.
- Suspicionless monitoring may be permissible in the probation context when reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety and tailored to enforce valid probation conditions.
- General limits on suspicionless searches of ordinary citizens do not control where the search condition is imposed based on an individual’s conviction and probation status.

## Conclusion

The court held that random, suspicionless urinalysis testing of a DUI probationer, when imposed to monitor compliance with a valid probation condition prohibiting alcohol and controlled substances, is a lawful warrantless search under Washington’s article I, section 7 because it is authorized by a valid court order and justified by probation-related supervision goals.


State v. Olsen, 189 Wn.2d 118, 399 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2017)