context: In the final analysis, our right under principles of federalism to stand as the final word on the Iowa Constitution is settled, long-standing, and good law.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 309 U.S. 551, 557
citation_a.parenthetical: "It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state con stitutions."
citation_a.sentence: See Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d at 281-86, 287-91 (rejecting the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as permitting warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees based on parole status alone); Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Iowa 1980) (“The result reached by the United States Supreme Court in construing the federal constitution is persuasive, but not binding upon this court in construing analogous provisions in our state constitution.”); State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 104-05, 191 N.W. 530, 535-36 (1923) (rejecting the exclusionary rule adopted by the United States Supreme Court for seizures of evidence by federal agents); see also Minnesota v. Nat’l Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 557, 60 S.Ct. 676, 679, 84 L.Ed. 920, 924 (1940) (“It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state con stitutions.”)- As more fully elucidated by the concurring opinion, state constitutions have been a crucial font of equality, civil rights, and civil liberties from the incipience of our republic.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 293 N.W.2d 577, 579
citation_b.parenthetical: "The result reached by the United States Supreme Court in construing the federal constitution is persuasive, but not binding upon this court in construing analogous provisions in our state constitution."
citation_b.sentence: See Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d at 281-86, 287-91 (rejecting the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as permitting warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees based on parole status alone); Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Iowa 1980) (“The result reached by the United States Supreme Court in construing the federal constitution is persuasive, but not binding upon this court in construing analogous provisions in our state constitution.”); State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 104-05, 191 N.W. 530, 535-36 (1923) (rejecting the exclusionary rule adopted by the United States Supreme Court for seizures of evidence by federal agents); see also Minnesota v. Nat’l Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 557, 60 S.Ct. 676, 679, 84 L.Ed. 920, 924 (1940) (“It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state con stitutions.”)- As more fully elucidated by the concurring opinion, state constitutions have been a crucial font of equality, civil rights, and civil liberties from the incipience of our republic.