need for a bright-line rule in Washington

2003In such a circumstance, the twofold rationale articulated in [ State v. ] Stroud [ 106 Wash.2d 144 , 720 P.2d 436 (1986)] would not support a conclusion that a warrantless search of living quarters in a vehicle is justified.[ [24] ] In Johnson, the court was faced with the question of whether a search of the sleeping compartment in the cab of a tractor-trailer was permissible as a search incident to the arrest of the driver. [25] The sleeper contained a bed and a clothes closet, and was accessible to the cab by an open portal or "walk-through area connected by a rubber boot." [26] A curtain co

2003In such a circumstance, the twofold rationale articulated in [ State v. ] Stroud [ 106 Wash.2d 144 , 720 P.2d 436 (1986)] would not support a conclusion that a warrantless search of living quarters in a vehicle is justified.[ [24] ] In Johnson, the court was faced with the question of whether a search of the sleeping compartment in the cab of a tractor-trailer was permissible as a search incident to the arrest of the driver. [25] The sleeper contained a bed and a clothes closet, and was accessible to the cab by an open portal or "walk-through area connected by a rubber boot." [26] A curtain co

2001Finally, we quoted with approval the reasoning of the Court of Appeals: "[W]hen a home is located in a vehicle, in such a way as to make it readily accessible from the passenger compartment, the safety of law enforcement officers and the need for a bright-line rule militate against prohibiting officers from searching a sleeping area which is readily accessible from the passenger compartment." Id. at 449, 909 P.2d 293 (quoting State v. Johnson, 77 Wash.App. 441, 447 , 892 P.2d 106 (1995)).

2001Finally, we quoted with approval the reasoning of the Court of Appeals: “[W]hen a home is located in a vehicle, in such a way as to make it readily accessible from the passenger compartment, the safety of law enforcement officers and the need for a bright-line rule militate against prohibiting officers from searching a sleeping area which is readily accessible from the passenger compartment.” Id. at 449 (quoting State v. Johnson, 77 Wn.

2001Finally, we quoted with approval the reasoning of the Court of Appeals: "[W]hen a home is located in a vehicle, in such a way as to make it readily accessible from the passenger compartment, the safety of law enforcement officers and the need for a bright-line rule militate against prohibiting officers from searching a sleeping area which is readily accessible from the passenger compartment." Id. at 449, 909 P.2d 293 (quoting State v. Johnson, 77 Wash.App. 441, 447 , 892 P.2d 106 (1995)).

2001App. 441, 447 , 892 P.2d 106 (1995), aff'd, 128 Wn.2d 431 (1996)).

2001Also, as this court said in State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 73 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996), in the context of searches incident to arrest the court has “been sensitive to the reality that the passenger compartment of a vehicle may harbor weapons for an occupant, and to the exigenc[y] that an occupant could. . . drive the vehicle away.” The same thing is true of a motor home.

2001Also, as this court said in State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 73 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996), in the context of searches incident to arrest the court has “been sensitive to the reality that the passenger compartment of a vehicle may harbor weapons for an occupant, and to the exigenc[y] that an occupant could. . . drive the vehicle away.” The same thing is true of a motor home.