In People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943, the Supreme Court reiterated the lessons of previous cases, that full body searches are impermissible when the arrest could be disposed of by a mere citation or the arrestee is to be transported to the stationhouse in the police vehicle and there given the opportunity to post bond. ( People v. Longwill, supra , 14 Cal.3d at p. 946.) In all these situations, the court observed, the same factors are operative: "The potential harm to the officer if the arrestee is armed justifies a limited weapons search, but a full booking search is 'inappropriate in the context of an arrestee who will never be subjected to that process.'" ( Id., at p. 950.) The court held that these same considerations govern in the case of a public intoxication arrest "and forbid full body field searches of persons arrested for the offense of public intoxication. " ( Id., at p. 946.) The court rejected the People's suggestion in Longwill that the search was justifiable as a form of accelerated booking search. Stating that "we have no quarrel with this rationale if in fact the individual is to be subjected to the booking process," the court observed: "But our recent decisions raise serious objections to a rule which would permit unrestricted searches of all public intoxication arrestees regardless of whether they are ultimately to be incarcerated, which intrusions mysteriously ripen into 'accelerated booking searches' in those few instances in which contraband is discovered on the person of the arrestee." (14 Cal.3d at p. 948.) The court's decision reflects recognition that there is a significant probability that a given public intoxication arrest may never reach the point at which the individual is actually incarcerated. This "significant probability" stems from the legislative scheme giving four separate officials--the arresting officer, his superior, the booking officer, and his superior--authority to intervene and divert the arrestee prior to incarceration (14 Cal.3d at p. 947, citing Penal Code sections 853.6 and 849, subdivision (b)(2)), and the fact that release pursuant to Penal Code section 849, subdivision (b)(2), is often standard practice for disposing of arrests for public intoxication ( id., at pp. 947-948). The court expressly recognized that an officer arresting an individual for public intoxication retains "broad discretion to effect a number of dispositional alternatives," and that one such alternative is to book and incarcerate the misdemeanant. "In that event," the court stated, "we agree with the People that a full body search may be conducted immediately prior to incarceration to prevent the entry of contraband into the jail facility." (14 Cal.3d at p. 946.) In conclusion the court stated: "For all the foregoing reasons we adhere to the lessons of Simon , Brisendine , and Norman . . . and thus for bid full body searches of individuals arrested for public intoxication until such time as they are actually to be incarcerated. " (14 Cal.3d at p. 952.)