penalty was discussed by the Colorado Supreme Court: We have recognized and exercised our independent role on a number of occasions and on several have determined that the Colorado Constitution provides more protection for our citizens than do similarly or identically worded provisions of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., People v. Oates, 698 P.2d 811 (Colo.1985) (rejecting the reasoning of United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984), which construed the United States Constitution, and holding that warrantless installation of an electronic tracking device in a drum of chemicals prior to sale violated the purchaser’s right to protection against unreasonable searches under the Colorado Constitution); People v. Sporleder, 666 P.2d 135 (Colo.1983) (<HOLDING>); Chames v. DiGiacomo, 200 Colo. 94, 612 P.2d
holding that definition of seizure under state constitution differs from that under us constitution holding in contrast to smith v maryland 442 us 735 99 sct 2577 61 led2d 220 1979 construing the federal constitution that warrantless installation of a pen register to record numbers dialed from defendants home telephone constituted an unreasonable search under the colorado 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 exception under state constitution recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole