After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Congress greatly enhanced federal law enforcement powers through enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The Supreme Court has provided more leeway to federal officers in the past few decades by limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule, for example. At the same time, many states have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater individual protections to their citizens than provided by the federal constitution. This phenomenon has sometimes created a wide disparity between the investigatory techniques available to federal versus state law enforcement officers. As a result, state courts sometimes must decide whether to suppress evidence obtained by federal law enforcement officers legally under federal law but in violation of state law. States that choose to suppress the evidence usually rely on a state evidentiary basis, ignoring federalism concerns. This Article proposes a framework by which state courts can take into account notions of federalism while still providing individual protections under their state constitutions.
Robert M. Bloom & Hilary Massey,
Accounting for Federalism in State Courts: Exclusion of Evidence Obtained Lawfully by Federal Agents,
U. Colo. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/lawreview/vol79/iss2/2