would not be available to a claimant under our state constitution. As Justice William Brennan sagely declared in his call to arms for state courts: Federalism need not be a mean-spirited doctrine that serves only to limit the scope of human liberty. Rather, it must necessarily be furthered significantly when state courts thrust themselves into a position of prominence in the struggle to protect the people of our nation from governmental intrusions on their freedoms. William J. Brennan Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L.Rev. 489, 503 (1977). More di App.2006) (“A probationer consents to the waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the opportunity to avoid incarceration.”); State v. Martinez, 811 P.2d 205, 209 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 580, 507
holding that the special needs of wisconsins probation system justified a warrantless search of a probationer by probation officers pursuant to a wisconsin regulation that allowed probation searches based on reasonable grounds holding probationer may waive claims to privacy by agreeing in advance to permit searches at any time holding warrantless search of probationers home by probation officers based on reasonable suspicion was constitutionally permissible when conditions of probation required probationer to submit to home visits but not searches holding defendant agreed to submit to searches as a condition of probation holding probationer prospectively consents to searches by signing probation agreement