Opinion ID: 1364982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Constitutional Factors: State v. Gunwall [12]

Text: In several recent cases where counsel has not thoroughly briefed and discussed state constitutional grounds independently of federal constitutional grounds, this court has declined to consider whether the Washington Constitution protects individual liberties beyond the protection afforded by the United States Constitution. [13] We observed in State v. Gunwall, supra , that `naked castings into the constitutional sea are not sufficient to command judicial consideration and discussion.' [14] Under criteria announced in Gunwall, six nonexclusive factors must be briefed before this court will consider an independent state constitutional claim: (1) differences in the textual language of the applicable state and federal provisions; (2) significant differences in the texts of other parallel provisions of the two constitutions; (3) state constitutional and common law history and development; (4) state law preexisting declaration of the federal standard; (5) structural differences between the two constitutions; and (6) matters of state interest or local concern where there is no need for national uniformity. [15] [1] In this case Appellants claim that RCW 43.43.754 violates both the federal and state constitutions. However, they do not address the Gunwall factors. While they cite both federal and state constitutional provisions and cases, they do not analyze their separate development or structure. Nor do they explain why this court should make a distinction between federal and state constitutional rights. We therefore decline to consider independent state constitutional grounds. [16]