State courts can construe mirrored rights provisions more protectively than the Supreme Court does.

Evidence

Perhaps because state courts have primary responsibility for the administration of criminal justice, initially the main focus of the new judicial federalism was the elaboration of state guarantees of defendants’ rights. Some state courts announced interpretations of state provisions—for example, on search and seizure, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination—that diverged from the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of analogous federal guarantees. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3372

Categorization

• XREF: Search-and-seizure divergence maps onto the exclusionary rule and good-faith exception lines of cases.