Opinion ID: 2444991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Operative Constitutional Text

Text: With respect to the first Geisler factor, namely, the operative constitutional text, we agree with the state that the language of article first, § 7, does not support the defendant's claim of greater protections than are provided under the fourth amendment. See footnotes 1 and 2 of this opinion. The state provision closely resembles the fourth amendment; State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 540, 594 A.2d 917 (1991); particularly as both proscribe only unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Dukes, supra, 209 Conn. at 121, 547 A.2d 10; see also, e.g., Washington v. Meachum, 238 Conn. 692, 719, 680 A.2d 262 (1996) (describing provisions as virtually identical). Although the linguistic similarity undermines the defendant's contention that the state constitution provides a greater opportunity to challenge the legality of a search than the federal constitution; State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280, 306, 929 A.2d 278 (2007); our inquiry does not end here, because this court has never considered itself bound to adopt the federal interpretation in interpreting the Connecticut constitution. Our system of federalism requires no less. But of even weightier concern is the authority of our state constitution, the fundamental charter of our state, and it is this court's duty to interpret and enforce our constitution. Here we note that the United States Supreme Court or its individual members have often called the attention of state courts to their independent responsibility for the constitutional laws of their states. Thus, in a proper case, `the law of the land' may not, in state constitutional context, also be `the law of the state of Connecticut.' State v. Dukes, supra, at 113-14, 547 A.2d 10.