Some interesting cases i found on the matter-
"RCW 46.64.070 was not enacted as a vehicle to gain entry to automobiles for the purpose of conducting exploratory searches. The intent was to allow troopers of the Washington State Patrol to make vehicle inspections "to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW." STATE v. SHOEMAKER, 11 Wn.App. 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 522 P.2d 203 (May 9, 1974).
"STATE OF WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION FROM OLYMPIA written by ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN J. O'CONNEL on December 10, 1959. THIS OPINION CONCLUDES THAT POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO STOP MOTORISTS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSES. And the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT: Under the rationale of the holding in Seattle v. Mesiani, 110 Wn.2d 454, 755 P.2d 775 (1988), AGO 88 (1959) IS STILL VALID AND CORRECT." STATE v. SMITS, 58 Wn.App. 333, 340, 341, 792 P.2d 565 (June 25, 1990). And;
A traffic stop is a seizure for purposes of constitutional analysis under both the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.
A pretextual traffic stop occurs when police pull over a citizen with the aim of conducting an investigation that is unrelated to driving, rather than stopping the individual with the goal of enforcing the traffic code. Pretextual stops "generally take the form of police stopping a driver for a minor traffic offense to investigate more serious violations -- violations for which the officer does not have probable cause." The stops in these cases were merely a pretext for further search or investigation regarding unrelated potential crimes, regardless of whether the pretextual arrest was facially valid. "Whether pretextual or not, a traffic stop is 'seizure' for the purpose of constitutional analysis, no matter how brief."
Pretext stops are not permitted under article 1, section 7 of the Washington
Constitution. When determining if a stop is pretextual,
courts look to the totality of the circumstances, including both the objective
reasonableness of the officer's behavior and the subjective intent of the officer.
Article I, section 7 provides that '{n}o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.' A traffic stop is a seizure for purposes of article I, section 7 and a disturbance of one's private affairs. State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 494-96, 987 P.2d 73 (1999); State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 979 P.2d 833 (1999).
