Opinion ID: 2631088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: worwood's state constitutional claim is procedurally barred

Text: ¶ 14 We would have welcomed an analysis under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution; however, we find Worwood's state constitutional claim to be procedurally barred and inadequately briefed. We have repeatedly instructed counsel on the consequences of failing to properly preserve and develop a state constitutional law claim. [11] Still, this instruction bears repeating, given the frequency with which these claims are inadequately briefed before this court. ¶ 15 When interpreting state constitutional provisions that are similar or identical to those in the federal constitution, we encourage a primacy approach. [12] Under the primacy model, `a state court looks first to state constitutional law, develops independent doctrine and precedent, and decides federal questions only when state law is not dispositive.' [13] ¶ 16 In developing an independent body of state search and seizure law, we have held that article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution often provides greater protections to Utah citizens than the Fourth Amendment, despite nearly identical language. [14] In order to further develop state constitutional law, however, claims must be properly presented to this court. [15] In criminal cases, `specific preservation of claims of error must be made a part of the trial court record' before the issue can be heard on appeal. [16] The issue must be `raised to a level of consciousness' that allows the trial court an adequate opportunity to address it. [17] It follows, then, that perfunctorily mentioning an issue, without more, does not preserve it for appeal. [18] Although inapplicable in this case, a court may consider an unpreserved issue when plain error is apparent or in an exceptional circumstance. [19] Furthermore, in part on the basis of the principle that preservation requires the lower court to be cognizant of a discreet issue, we have repeatedly refrained from engaging in state constitutional law analysis unless an argument for different analyses under the state and federal constitutions is briefed. [20] ¶ 17 On some level, we understand counsel's hesitance to robustly address state constitutional issues in the lower courts. The similarity between the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution plus the fledgling development of state search and seizure law makes some reliance on principles from federal cases likely. And because the federal search and seizure rules provide a floor from which state constitutional law can depart, interpretations of these provisions will oftentimes substantially overlap. [21] Finally, as a practical matter, trial courts may be reluctant to decide search and seizure issues on grounds that deviate from well-established, albeit murky, federal constitutional principles. ¶ 18 Nevertheless, in keeping with our preservation policy, a state constitutional law argument must be raised in the trial court, preserved through the appellate process, and adequately briefed to us. As with most legal arguments, there is no magic formula for an adequate state constitutional analysis. Arguments based, for example, on historical context, the constitution's text, public policy, or persuasive authority would all meet our briefing requirements. But cursory references to the state constitution within arguments otherwise dedicated to a federal constitutional claim are inadequate. When parties fail to direct their argument to the state constitutional issue, our ability to formulate an independent body of state constitutional law is compromised. Inadequate briefing denies our fledgling state constitutional analysis the full benefit of the interested parties' thoughts on these important issues. ¶ 19 Throughout the appellate process, Worwood has claimed that his appeal is partially based on article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution. No distinct legal argument or analysis supports this assertion, however. Instead, in motions and briefs to the trial court and the court of appeals, Worwood nominally relies on article I, section 14, but actually bases his argument exclusively on the Fourth Amendment. Worwood neither attempts any separate state constitutional analysis nor suggests that the two constitutional protections are anything but coextensive. In his brief to us, Worwood's state constitutional analysis is limited to the truism that article I, section 14 may provide greater protections to Utah citizens than the Fourth Amendment. But he failed to advance a unique state constitutional analysis. Because Worwood's state constitutional claim was neither properly preserved in the trial court, properly presented to the court of appeals, nor adequately briefed to us, we decline to reach it.