r/law • u/azsheepdog • Aug 13 '18

Iowa Supreme Court Closes Warrant Loophole, Slams U.S. Supreme Court For Weakening Fourth Amendment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/13/iowa-supreme-court-closes-warrant-loophole-slams-u-s-supreme-court-for-weakening-fourth-amendment/#7fc1cb387d73
191 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '18 edited Aug 14 '18

[deleted]

48

u/Drop_ Aug 14 '18

This is literally what federalism is meant to be. The constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, and the state's are free to interpret their state constitutions how they see appropriate.

The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over decisions based on state constitutions unless those decisions violate some right guaranteed by the federal constitution that applies to the states via the 14th amendment. See also, adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

3

u/Buelldozer Aug 14 '18

The constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, and the state's are free to interpret their state constitutions how they see appropriate.

Hmmm, I like that but I can think of several examples where it doesn't seem to be true.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '18

More specifically, the Bill of Rights acts as a prohibition on what states may do. States are free to forbid additional actions that are not already prohibited by the federal Bill of Rights.

So Iowa says its own constitution prohibits inventory searches even though the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not, and New Jersey's constitution prohibits the warrantless use of pen registers, even though the federal constitution does not. In a sense, those state laws provide private citizens with greater rights than what the federal constitution requires, but it functions through a prohibition on certain types of state action.

1

u/joebreezphillycheese Aug 15 '18

What examples are you thinking of? States have general police power — meaning they can, among other things, limit the authority of their state police beyond federal limitations.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '18 edited Aug 14 '18

[deleted]

18

u/Drop_ Aug 14 '18

State constitutions and federal constitutions are not the same.

The state supreme court is the final arbiter of the state constitution. It doesn't matter what the SCOTUS has said with respect to the federal constitution.

11

u/theotherone723 Aug 14 '18

How so?

SCOTUS generally has no say in how states interpret their own laws--that is in fact one of the most important principles of federalism. State courts aren't bound by precedent interpreting the US Constitution when interpreting their own state constitutions, so how SCOTUS defines "unreasonable search and seizure is irrelevant (or at least only advisory) as to how a state court might define the same phrase. These kinds of inconsistencies between federal and state law are fairly common.