STATE CONSTITUTIONSTATE CONSTITUTIONSTATE CONSTITUTIONSTATE CONSTITUTIONSTATE CONSTITUTION
I. THE ADEQUATE STATE GROUND
DOCTRINE
The authority of state courts to construe their state
constitutions independently is well-recognized. State
constitutions historically have been viewed as documents
with some independent force. The federal Bill of Rights
was modeled primarily on the early revolutionary state
constitutions. The amendments adopted represented a
simplified list of states’ rights and were not intended to
provide a greater or lesser degree of protection. While
New Jersey’s 1776 Constitution did not contain a Bill of
Rights, it did establish certain fundamental criminal
protections, including a right to a jury trial and the
privilege of counsel.
Under the independent and adequate state ground
doctrine, the United States Supreme Court generally
declines to review a state decision based on either a state
ground alone, constitutional or otherwise, or on both
state and federal grounds if resolution of the state law
issue conclusively renders consideration of the federal
question unnecessary.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the
continuing validity of the adequate state ground
doctrine, noting that a state is free as a matter of its own
law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than
the Supreme Court finds necessary under the Fourth
Amendment. However, pointing to the potential erosion
of principles of federalism, the Court has carefully
reviewed decisions in which state tribunals expand
criminal protections under the guise of state
constitutions while relying on federal law interpreta-
tions.
In Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469
(1983), the United States Supreme Court reversed a
Michigan Supreme Court decision, invalidating a
protective search, which seemed to be based on both the
Michigan Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
The Michigan court’s opinion twice referred to the state
constitution’s search and seizure clause but otherwise
relied exclusively on federal law. After holding that mere
references to the state constitution were insufficient to
foreclose federal review under the independent and
adequate state ground doctrine, the Supreme Court also
set forth criteria as to the sufficiency of asserted state
grounds to support a state court decision.
When a state opinion relies heavily upon federal
grounds and where the asserted state ground is not
apparent from the face of the opinion, then the Court will
presume that federal law dictated the result. Thus, it will
not assume that the opinion rested on an independent
state ground. But if a state court relies on federal
precedent merely for direction, the opinion must include
a “plain statement” that the federal cases are being used
only for the purpose of guidance and do not themselves
compel the result the court has reached. In short, state
decisions that evaluate the legality of police conduct
under federal standards, and then conclude without
further analysis that the state privilege was violated, will
not escape federal review. Michigan v. Long, supra. See
also Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 261-62, 109 S.Ct.
1038, 1042-43 (1989).II. RELIANCE UPON STATE CONSTITU-
TIONS AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF
RIGHTS
As the use of state constitutions as a distinct source of
individual rights has grown, two fundamental schools of
analysis have emerged to define the relationship between
state and federal constitutions: the primacy, or self-
reliant method, and the supplemental, or interstitial,
approach. At the heart of these two concepts lies core
philosophical differences concerning the weight of
independence to be accorded state constitutions in the
country’s system of federalism and the deference to be
given United States Supreme Court decisions.The self-reliant approach advocates a staunchly
independent interpretation of state constitutions. Under
this scheme, if a criminal defendant alleges that police
conduct violates both the state and federal constitutions,
the state court should first examine the meaning of the
relevant state guarantee and how it applies in the
particular case. A finding that state law protects the
claimed right obviates the need for federal constitutional
analysis. Only if the state law is less protective, should the
court proceed to determine the claim under the federal
constitution.Although, for example, the Oregon Supreme Court
has wholeheartedly embraced the self-reliant approach,
New Jersey and other states have adopted the less radical
supplemental or interstitial model. See State v. Hunt, 91
N.J. 338, 345-346 (1982); Pollock, “State Constitutions
as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights,” 35 Rutgers
L. Rev. 707, 717-718 (1983). This approach
acknowledges the dominant role of Supreme Court