People v. Maher

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. *204Assuming, however, the validity of the Longwill rule, I agree that the case is controlling here.