Are there differences in the substantive scope of the state and federal search and seizure provisions?

Indeed, it would be surprising to find California cases decided after Proposition 8 discussing differences in the substantive scope of the state and federal search and seizure provisions, as it is highly unusual for search and seizure issues to arise in any context other than a suppression motion, which Proposition 8 requires to be decided according to federal law. The unavailability of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the state Constitution that are not violations of the Fourth Amendment means that state courts considering suppression of evidence must engage in a Fourth Amendment analysis. (People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, 1089, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 74, 253 P.3d 247.) But the argument respondent draws from this factthat although the substantive scope of article I, section 13, was unaffected by Proposition 8, arrestees' rights are nevertheless limited in a practical sense by the absence of the exclusionary rule as a remedyis too facile. The present case has nothing to do with the

[231 Cal.App.4th 1486]