Brief of respondent for Florida v. Powell, 08-1175 - Oyez

21
here warrant dismissal. What can be demonstrated,
however, is that this case is unlike those in which the
Court has rejected challenges to its jurisdiction. In
Long, for instance, “[t]he court below referred twice to
the state constitution . . . but otherwise relied
exclusively on federal law,” 463 U.S. at 1037, whereas
the Florida Supreme Court cited the Florida Constitution
no less than five times as the basis for its
decision. 4
Similarly, this case is unlike Florida v. Riley, 488
U.S. 445, 448 n.1 (1989) (plurality opinion), in which
the Court exercised jurisdiction where the Florida
Supreme Court had “mentioned the State Constitution
in posing the question, once in the course of its
opinion, and again in finally concluding that the
search violated the Fourth Amendment and the State
Constitution.” There, the court below could not have
relied on independent state grounds because of a
4
See also Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 182 (1990)
(exercising jurisdiction where decision below “does not rely on
(or even mention) any specific provision of the Illinois Constitution,
nor even the Illinois Constitution generally [and] the
Illinois cases cited by the opinion rely upon no constitutional
provisions other than the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments”);
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 37 (1996) (state court
mentioned state constitution in passing and cited only federal
cases); New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 872 n.4 (1986)
(exercising jurisdiction where “the New York Court of Appeals
cited the New York Constitution only once, near the beginning of
its opinion, and in the same parenthetical also cited the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution”).