In the new issue of Arizona Attorney magazine, I take a brief look at the too-neglected "Private Affairs" Clause of the Arizona Constitution. Excerpt:
where the federal Fourth Amendment bars "unreasonable" searches and requires that warrants be based on "probable cause," the [Arizona] Constitution contains none of these words. Instead, it forbids the government from "disturb[ing]" a person's "private affairs" without "authority of law." This phraseology is virtually unique in the United States. In fact, it appears in only one other constitution,that of Washington State, from which it was borrowed. Bt while Washington courts have interpreted the Private Affairs Clause in ways that give that state's citizens some of the strongest protections against warrantless searches in the nation, Arizona courts have not done the same. Instead, they've largely followed federal legal doctrines, despite the fact that federal precedent is devoted to interpreting words such as "unreasonable" and "probable cause"--words that do not even appear in the Arizona Constitution. The result is one of the stragest anomalies in American law Arizona courtsa re relying on case law that derives from an entirely different constitution--and igniring Washington precedent that does intrepret the relevant text. The story of that enimga is a twisted tale of legal thinking gone awry.
Read the rest...
Comments policy