# People v. Maher

> California Supreme Court · June 21, 1976 · 17 Cal. 3d 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557995

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICHARD THOMAS MAHER, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 21, 1976
- **Citations:** 17 Cal. 3d 196; 130 Cal. Rptr. 508; 550 P.2d 1044; 1976 Cal. LEXIS 289
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Richardson
- **Judges:** Mosk, Richardson, Clark
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557995

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557995. Public record. Not legal advice.