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

22
1982 state constitutional amendment requiring
courts to construe Article I, Section 12 of the Florida
Constitution “ ‘in conformity with the 4th Amendment
to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by
the United States Supreme Court’ ” and to “provide no
greater protection than those interpretations.” Bernie
v. State, 524 So. 2d 988, 990-91 (Fla. 1988) (quoting
and adding emphasis to Fla. Const. art. I, § 12).
This case is also unlike Evans, where this Court
rejected an argument that the decision below rested
on independent and adequate state grounds, in
particular a state “good-faith statute.” 514 U.S. at 6-
7, 9. The decision below in Evans reflected that the
good-faith statute was of no import because the case
was “not about the motives of the police” and “[t]he
fact that the arresting officer acted in good faith [was]
irrelevant.” State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869, 871 (Ariz.
1994).
And this case is unlike Pennsylvania v. Labron,
518 U.S. 938, 940-41 (1996), and New York v. Class,
475 U.S. 106, 109-10 (1986), because, there, the state
high courts did not make clear that the applicable
state constitutional protections were independent of
federal requirements. 5
By contrast, the Florida
5
This case is also unlike Kansas v. Marsh, where the
decision below was based on a prior state court decision that,
“itself, rested on federal law.” 548 U.S. 163, 169 (2006); see also
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 571 (1988) (“Like the
court below it, the [state high court] rested its ruling on state
precedents interpreting the Fourth Amendment.”).