Whatever the merits of new judicial federalism, it has not translated well in practice. Doctrinal reasons are probably partly to blame, but utilitarian factors matter, too. Using the State of Maine as an example, this article develops a litigation roadmap specifically geared to overcoming the pragmatic reasons against reviving the protections embodied in the state constitution’s search and seizure clause. This fills a gap in the existing literature, which often argues either for or against state constitutionalism, but neglects the most di fficult part: explaining to practicing lawyers how to start a state constitutional dialogue with the court.

First Page