Court Opinion

ID: 9614276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:23:57.825662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:34.725214
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Justice,
Specially Concurring.
I concur in the reasoning and the result in this case. I add the following comments only by way of further explanation of that concurrence.
In this case the Court has followed the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990). Consequently, the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and this Court’s interpretation of Art. 1, § 17, Idaho Constitution, are consistent. There may be instances in which language in the Idaho Constitution that is comparable to language in the United States Constitution is interpreted differently. However, that should only occur if there is an articulable basis to rule that a different meaning is intended in the Idaho Constitution. That may arise from a historical background or a variation in language or constitutional history. A different interpretation should not arise from nothing more than a subjective dislike for a rule.