Opinion ID: 1379441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relationship Between the Federal and State Constitutions

Text: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ... U.S. Const. amend. IV. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court declared that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded in federal criminal proceedings. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). Later, the Court applied the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary rule to the individual states as well. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). Therefore, all citizens enjoy this federal constitutional protection in every criminal proceeding. In parallel with the protection of the Fourth Amendment, the South Carolina Constitution also provides a safeguard against unlawful searches and seizures. See S.C. Const. art. I. § 10. The relationship between the two constitutions is significant because [s]tate courts may afford more expansive rights under state constitutional provisions than the rights which are conferred by the Federal Constitution. State v. Easier, 327 S.C. 121, 131 n. 13, 489 S.E.2d 617, 625 n. 13 (1997); see also State v. Austin, 306 S.C. 9, 409 S.E.2d 811 (Ct.App.1991). Therefore, state courts can develop state law to provide their citizens with a second layer of constitutional rights. Id. This relationship is often described as a recognition that the federal Constitution sets the floor for individual rights while the state constitution establishes the ceiling. See Segura v. Texas, 826 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Tex.App.1992). Thus, this Court can interpret the state protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in such a way as to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. Especially important in this analysis is South Carolina's explicit constitutional right to privacy. [2] In addition to language which mirrors the Fourth Amendment, S.C. Const. art. 1 § 10 contains an express protection of the right to privacy: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, ... (emphasis added). Initially, even in the absence of a specific right to privacy provision, this Court could interpret our state constitution as providing more protection than the federal counterpart. However, by articulating a specific prohibition against unreasonable invasions of privacy, the people of South Carolina have indicated that searches and seizures that do not offend the federal Constitution may still offend the South Carolina Constitution resulting in the exclusion of the discovered evidence. Ten states have express right to privacy provisions in their constitutions. [3] South Carolina and five other states have their right to privacy provision included in the section prohibiting unreasonable search and seizures. [4] South Carolina and the other states with a right to privacy provision imbedded in the search and seizure provision of their constitutions have held such a provision creates a distinct privacy right that applies both within and outside the search and seizure context. See, e.g., Singleton v. State, 313 S.C. 75, 437 S.E.2d 53 (1993)(finding the state constitutional right to privacy prevented the forced medication of a death row inmate in preparation of execution). Furthermore, many of the states that have adopted explicit state constitutional right to privacy provisions have read their constitutions as applying protection above and beyond the protection provided by the federal Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Church, 538 So.2d 993 (La.1989)(disallowing a police roadblock under the state constitution's right to privacy even though it did not violate the Fourth Amendment). The South Carolina Constitution, with an express right to privacy provision included in the article prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, favors an interpretation offering a higher level of privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment. The issue in the case before the Court is whether this privacy provision goes so far as to require informed consent to government searches.