The Fourth Amendment is crucial for protecting Americans from government intrusion. However, new technologies such as pole cameras, reverse keyword searches, and geofence searches provide new ways for governments to gather information about individuals. As these new technologies develop, the Fourth Amendment has struggled to advance alongside this new technology.

Thankfully, the Fourth Amendment is not the only protection Americans have from government intrusion. Every single state has its own state constitution and analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. In fact, some states had their own analog amendments even before the adoption of the Federal Fourth Amendment. While oftentimes the state amendments are similarly written to the federal one, states are under no obligation to interpret their amendments the same way federal courts have interpreted the Federal Fourth Amendment. States are free to interpret their amendments however they want as long as they do not provide less protection than the Federal Fourth Amendment. State courts are empowered to respond to new technologies separately from federal courts and perhaps provide greater protection than federal courts are willing to afford.

This Note argues that states should not interpret their analogs to the Federal Fourth Amendment as being the same as the federal one, especially in regards to new technology. State constitutional protections do not have to be an afterthought. This Note provides examples of state courts that have decided to break from federal precedent and interpret their constitutions differently, affording greater protections for their citizens. It also cautions against what happens when a state forgoes deciding cases under their own constitutions. Lastly, this Note offers several suggestions for how courts and the legal community empower state courts to embrace their state constitutional protections more frequently.