recognizing that states are free to reject federal holdings as long as state action does not fall below the minimum standards provided by federal constitutional protections and also may impose greater restrictions than those the Supreme Court holds to be necessary under federal constitutional standards
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that states are free to reject federal holdings as long as state action does not fall below the minimum standards provided by federal constitutional protections and also may impose greater restrictions than those the Supreme Court holds to be necessary under federal constitutional standards
- explaining that under a “new federalism” approach to constitutional interpretation “a state is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those the Supreme Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards”
- holding that Texas courts interpreting the search and seizure protections in the Texas Constitution are not bound to “blindly follow the Supreme Court’s decisions” interpreting the parallel guarantee in the Fourth Amendment
- holding that failure to ..j j -' -•- -i •- -j -j independently construe state constitutional provisions places decision in hands of Supreme Court of the United States which is not responsible to electorate
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*691 McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Today the majority remands appellant’s conviction to the Court of Appeals to consider a ground not briefed before this Court. Instead, the majority adopts the doctrine of “independent state grounds,” and without guidance leaves to the Court of Appeals the formulation of our state law.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.