holding under state constitution that “a full body search incident to arrest is impermissible when the person is arrested for an offense for which he will merely be cited or released on bail”
How later courts described this case
- holding under state constitution that “a full body search incident to arrest is impermissible when the person is arrested for an offense for which he will merely be cited or released on bail”
- arrest for public intoxication
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RICHARDSON, J.
I concur, under the compulsion of People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 538 P.2d 753 ]. Longwill, in reliance upon People v. Norman (1975) 14 Cal.3d 929 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 538 P.2d 237 ], and People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 531 P.2d 1099 ], refused to follow clearly applicable precedents of the United States Supreme Court which would have permitted full body searches of all persons subjected to custodial arrest. As I expressed in a concurring opinion in Norman ( 14 Cal.3d at p. 940 ), and in a dissenting opinion in (People v. Disbrow (1976) 16 Cal.3d 101, 117, 118-121 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 545 P.2d 272 ]), in the absence of some persuasive reason otherwise, I believe we should follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in its construction of federal constitutional provisions which are essentially identical to those of our state Constitution. *204 Assuming, however, the validity of the Longwill rule, I agree that the case is controlling here.