State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 104-05, 191 N.W. 530, 535-36 (1923) (rejecting the exclusionary rule adopted by the United States Supreme Court for seizures of evidence by federal agents); see also Minnesota v. Nat’l Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 557, 60 S.Ct. 676, 679, 84 L.Ed. 920, 924 (1940) (“It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state con stitutions.”)- As more fully elucidated by the concurring opinion, state constitutions have been a crucial font of equality, civil rights, and civil liberties from the incipience of our republic. Thus, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment — or any other fundamental, civil, or human right for d 432, 438 (1979) (<HOLDING>); State v. Mitchell, 22 N.C.App. 663, 207
holding that asking a detained motorist whether he would consent to a search of his automobile for contraband even after he had produced a valid drivers license did not necessarily make the traffic stop unreasonable in scope or duration holding that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling was reasonable as to one occupant who gave consent but not to another who did not holding that defendants failure to withdraw consent to search for criminal activity in his home included the top floor because he did not withdraw his consent to search when he observed the officer go upstairs holding defendant gave a valid and knowing consent to a search of his dwelling and automobile when he agreed to the terms of probation holding the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his bedroom based upon evidence that defendant 1 did not contest the fact that he had voluntarily given verbal consent to the search 2 did not appear to be nervous or scared and was cooperative with the officers 3 led officers to his bedroom and 4 was present for the search and did not indicate at any time that he wished to revoke his consent