Abstract
We are in the era of rediscovery of state constitutional law. In Ohio, there has been an official announcement of this in the syllabus of a highly significant case, Arnold v. City of Cleveland. In Ohio, the syllabus is the law of the case. The syllabus of Arnold begins with the simple but dramatic statement, "The Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force." It goes on to state, in the remainder of the paragraph, the basic guidepost of federal/state relations in the area of individual rights: In the areas of individual rights and civil liberties, the United States Constitution, where applicable to the states, provides a floor below which state court decisions may not fall. As long as state courts provide at least as much protection as the United States Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of the federal Bill of Rights, state courts are unrestricted in according greater civil liberties and protections to individuals and groups. This article will analyze the application of these principles in the case of State v. Robinette ("Robinette I")
Recommended Citation
Bettman, Marianna Brown
(1999)
"Identical Constitutional Language: What is a State Court to Do? The Ohio Case of State v. Robinette,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 32:
Iss.
4, Article 1.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol32/iss4/1