28 N.W.2d 504, 508 (1947) (although language contained in the Iowa Constitution concerning the Fourth Amendment is identical to the federal constitution, the Supreme Court of Iowa does not need to follow construction placed on the language by the United States Supreme Court). Our freedom to interpret our constitution is of course in contrast to determinations in federal constitutional challenges, where we are obliged to conform with the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court. State v. James, 393 N.W.2d 465, 466 (Iowa 1986). Additionally, we traditionally exercise great caution in declaring legislation unconstitutional. State v. Rivera, 260 Iowa 320, 322-23, 149 N.W.2d 127, 129 (1967); Stoner McCray Sys. v. City of Des Moines, 247 Iowa 1313, 1323, 78 N.W.2d 843, 847 (1956) (<HOLDING>). Our review of authorities outside Iowa
holding the argument that the state and federal constitutions required appointed counsel in adoption proceeding was not preserved holding statute denying putative father standing to bring legitimation action under statute in effect at the time did not violate due process or equal protection of state or federal constitutions holding that the former alaska civil rule governing prejudgement attachments violated the due process clauses of both the state and the federal constitutions holding city ordinance requiring immediate removal of existing billboards or special council permission to keep billboards in use which did not provide for compensation for billboards violated due process provisions of state and federal constitutions holding nonjudicial foreclosure did not involve sufficient state action to trigger iowa constitutions due process clause