by rejection of the plain feel doctrine under our state constitution. In assessing the policy considerations, it is analytically important to remember that jurisprudence under both Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seeks to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the privacy interests of citizens and permitting law enforcement officials to act without hamstringing restraints. See Campbell, 418 Pa.Super. at 399, 614 A.2d at 696. Federal decisions, however, tend to lend greater weight to the interests of law enforcement, while the decisions of our Commonwealth courts more often emphasize the preservation of individual privacy. See White, supra; Melilli, 521 Pa. at 412, 555 A.2d at 1258; see also Matos, supra (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Martin, 534 Pa. 136, 626 A.2d
recognizing exception under state constitution recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution holding that definition of seizure under state constitution differs from that under us constitution