A Washington county judge has ruled that the city of Seattle’s warrantless searches of garbage violated the state’s constitution.

In her 14-page order, King County Judge Beth Andrus found in favor of eight Seattle residents whose trash was searched by sanitation workers. The workers were operating under a city ordinance that allowed them to inspect trash for possible violations of a city composting law. Violators could be fined $1 if they mistakenly put food waste into their regular garbage rather than organic waste bins.

The ruling turned on whether these inspections amounted to a privacy violation. The order, which was handed down last week, illustrates that states are able to grant more rights than those interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Washington State Constitution declares: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." Judge Andrus noted in her order that "this language has been held to be qualitatively different from, and more protective than, the Fourth Amendment." By contrast, a 1988 Supreme Court decision, California v. Greenwood, ruled that a similar search of abandoned garbage did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

As she concluded:

This Court does not find that the City’s ban on the disposal of food waste and compostable paper in residential garbage cans is unlawful. The City persuasively argues that it has the police power to take steps to reduce the quantity of compostable material being disposed in landfills and that the ban is a reasonable regulation promoting public safety, health, and welfare. The Plaintiffs do not challenge these contentions. The only claim Plaintiffs raise is whether the City’s chosen method of enforcement, codified in [Seattle Municipal Code] 21.36.083(B)(2)(b) and (c), and [Seattle Public Utilities] Director’s Rule SW 402.1 (B) (1) - (3), violates residents’ privacy rights by authorizing warrantless searches of their garbage. This ruling does not prohibit the City from banning food waste and compostable paper in SPU-provided garbage cans. It merely renders invalid the provisions of the ordinance and rule that authorize a warrantless search of residents’ garbage cans when there is no applicable exception to the warrant requirement, such as the existence of prohibited items in plain view.

In a statement, Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, applauded the ruling.

"By authorizing garbage collectors to pry through people’s garbage without a warrant, the city has promoted a policy of massive and persistent snooping," he said. "That’s not just wrong as a matter of policy, as the judge has correctly ruled, it is wrong as a matter of law."

This ruling is only binding within the state and can be appealed all the way up to the Washington Supreme Court.

In a statement, the City of Seattle wrote: "We are pleased that the court’s ruling recognizes the City's ability to regulate what goes into trash cans to address conservation and safety needs. ‘Plain view’ monitoring for dangerous items is vital to protecting worker and public safety. This was the most important issue at stake in this case."

Andy Ryan, a City of Seattle spokesman, told Ars that the city did not plan to appeal the ruling.