NCJ Number
99392
Journal
Criminal Justice Quarterly Volume: 8 Issue: 4 Dated: (Spring 1985) Pages: 155-176
Date Published
1985
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This article examines the bases for States' reliance upon their own constitutions as sources of civil rights as well as the U.S. Supreme Court's response to this trend. After using the New Jersey Supreme Court's search-and-seizure cases as an example of independent State constitutional interpretation, this article also suggests how prosecutors can rebut defendants' claims based on State constitutional arguments.
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court has assertively reviewed decisions in which State tribunals expand criminal protections under the guise of State constitutions while relying on Federal law interpretations. Consequently, State courts wishing to provide criminal protections either unavailable under the Federal Constitution or no longer guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or no longer guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court have turned to their State constitutions as a means of avoiding Federal review. The basis for this evasion technique is in the independent and adequate State ground doctrine. Under this doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court generally declines to review a State decision based on either a State ground alone, constitutional or otherwise, or on both State and Federal grounds if resolution of the State law renders consideration of the Federal issue unnecessary. Since 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court in three major search-and-seizure cases has rejected U.S. Supreme Court rulings and imposed greater restrictions on police activity under the State constitution. In arguing that this is inappropriate, given the similarity between New Jersey and Federal relevant constitutional provisions, < this article presents five suggestions to assist prosecutors in counteracting defendants' State constitutional claims. A total of 238 footnotes are listed.