dissenting.
1. I respectfully dissent with respect to Division 1, for the reasons set out in the special concurrence when the case was initially before us. Smith v. City of East Point, 183 Ga. App. 659, 663 (359 SE2d 692) (1987).
This may seem anomalous, in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue of the constitutionality of the mandatory urinalysis in connection with employment retention. However, the Court apparently merely assumed, for the purpose of addressing the substance of the opinion writer’s view, that the personnel board was properly constituted. In any event, its decision on the constitutional issue does not foreclose the question of the composition of the administrative body which affirmed the termination of employment based on the urinalysis. But it does mean that, if the body had no jurisdiction in the first place, its affirmance of termination was void for a different reason than originally addressed.
Two points should be noted. The initial opinion rendered in this court was that of one judge and not that of the court. One member of *459the panel concurred in the judgment only, so the reason for that judge’s vote for reversal is not known. The third member concurred on an entirely different basis, as set out in the special concurrence. This must be understood when considering what the Supreme Court described as “the Court of Appeals’ holding” and its statements concerning the Court of Appeals’ views. The opinion rendered has physical precedence only, Rule 35 (b), and because of its particular nature does not express the views of even a majority of the panel.
Decided November 18, 1988 — Rehearing denied December 5, 1988 Scott Walters, Jr., for appellant. James A. Eidson, James W. Kytle, for appellees.The second point relates to the Supreme Court’s statement in footnote 3 that, “as noted by the Court of Appeals, Smith’s failure to pursue a fourth amendment claim is insignificant as a practical matter.” The omission is not insignificant at all. Quite to the contrary, the result is that Smith cannot carry his case to the United States Supreme Court and seek a national-standard ruling that his federal constitutional right was violated even if the state constitution was adhered to. Cf. Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1037 (103 SC 3469, 77 LE2d 1201) (1983); New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 109 (106 SC 960, 89 LE2d 81) (1986). See concurring opinion of Justice Stephens in Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U. S. 727, 735 (104 SC 2085, 80 LE2d 721) (1984).
Pursuit of rights claimed separately under both constitutions is the only way in which to assure vindication of “constitutional rights” in our federal system. Of course, if relief is granted pursuant to the state constitution, the complaining party need go no farther than our own Supreme Court, so for that reason the state constitutional claim should always be addressed and decided first. Otherwise, as demonstrated by the history of an Oregon case, the United States Supreme Court unnecessarily must decide the federal issue: State v. Kennedy, 49 Or. App. 415 (619 P2d 948) (1980), rev’d and remanded sub nom. Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U. S. 667 (102 SC 2083, 72 LE2d 416) (1982), aff’d sub nom. State v. Kennedy, 61 Or. App. 469 (657 P2d 717), aff’d 295 Or. 260 (666 P2d 1316) (1983). Justice Linde explains this in the final opinion in the wayward travels of this case.
2. To the extent that the remaining enumerations involve questions of law which would arise again in a hearing under a properly constituted board, I concur in Divisions 2-6.