Ker v. California
Encyclopedia
Ker v. California, , was a case before the United States Supreme Court
, which incorporated
the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5-4.
in Southern California
. The two were arrested after officers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
saw George Ker meeting another person who was suspected of selling illegal drugs. Although lighting conditions and distance prevented the officers observing this meeting from seeing any exchange of money or drugs between Ker and the other man, they believed Ker was part of a drug-trading ring. After losing their prime suspect, the officers went to the Ker’s apartment and entered without consent or a warrant using a pass key supplied by the building manager. An officer observed a “brick-shaped package of green leafy substance” on the kitchen table and arrested both Kers. A subsequent warrantless search of the apartment and the Ker’s car found more packaged and loose marijuana and marijuana seeds, all of which was used as evidence against the Kers.
After conviction in state Superior Court
, both the California District Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court
upheld the conviction, ruling that the evidence was not seized in the course of an unlawful search.
that evidence seized in the course of an illegal search
was inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. The Court extended that holding in this case, addressing the standard for deciding what are the fruits of an illegal search in state criminal trials. Clark’s opinion addressed “the specific question as to whether Mapp requires the exclusion of evidence
in this case which the California District Court of Appeal has held to be lawfully seized.” Unlike the previous case, where the search was clearly unreasonable, the District Court had found that the seizure of the drugs in the Kers’ apartment was allowed as being incident to an otherwise lawful arrest. The Supreme Court granted certiorari
to give lower courts guidance on decide when evidence is the fruit of an unlawful search or seizure.
The Court declared that the standards of reasonableness are the same under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments applying in Federal and State courts. Clark interpreted the Court’s precedents in determining if the search of the Kers’ apartment and car were reasonable.
, .
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
, which incorporated
Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government...
the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5-4.
Prior history
George Douglas and Diane Ker (a married couple) were convicted of possession of marijuanaCannabis (drug)
Cannabis, also known as marijuana among many other names, refers to any number of preparations of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug or for medicinal purposes. The English term marijuana comes from the Mexican Spanish word marihuana...
in Southern California
California
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
. The two were arrested after officers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is a local county law enforcement agency that serves Los Angeles County, California. It is the fourth largest local policing agency in the United States, with the New York City Police Department being the first. The second largest is the Chicago Police...
saw George Ker meeting another person who was suspected of selling illegal drugs. Although lighting conditions and distance prevented the officers observing this meeting from seeing any exchange of money or drugs between Ker and the other man, they believed Ker was part of a drug-trading ring. After losing their prime suspect, the officers went to the Ker’s apartment and entered without consent or a warrant using a pass key supplied by the building manager. An officer observed a “brick-shaped package of green leafy substance” on the kitchen table and arrested both Kers. A subsequent warrantless search of the apartment and the Ker’s car found more packaged and loose marijuana and marijuana seeds, all of which was used as evidence against the Kers.
After conviction in state Superior Court
Superior court
In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general competence which typically has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases...
, both the California District Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
upheld the conviction, ruling that the evidence was not seized in the course of an unlawful search.
Case
The Court had decided two years earlier in Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as...
that evidence seized in the course of an illegal search
Search and seizure
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have...
was inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. The Court extended that holding in this case, addressing the standard for deciding what are the fruits of an illegal search in state criminal trials. Clark’s opinion addressed “the specific question as to whether Mapp requires the exclusion of evidence
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
in this case which the California District Court of Appeal has held to be lawfully seized.” Unlike the previous case, where the search was clearly unreasonable, the District Court had found that the seizure of the drugs in the Kers’ apartment was allowed as being incident to an otherwise lawful arrest. The Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to give lower courts guidance on decide when evidence is the fruit of an unlawful search or seizure.
The Court declared that the standards of reasonableness are the same under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments applying in Federal and State courts. Clark interpreted the Court’s precedents in determining if the search of the Kers’ apartment and car were reasonable.
Effects of the decision
The Kers themselves did not, however, personally benefit from this decision. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented and agreed with the California courts that the seizure was incident to a lawful arrest. The Sheriff’s officers had probable cause to make a warrentless arrest, and the most prominent evidence (the brick of marijuana) was in plain sight. Clark also dismissed the other reasonableness objections raised by the Kers. Brennan’s opinion diverged from Clark’s on this point, saying that the search was not reasonable under existing precedent.Subsequent history
Ker has been cited by subsequent decisions both for the holding of Fourth Amendment incorporation and for allowing warrantless search and seizure with probable cause or to prevent destruction of contraband. For example, Michigan v. Tyler, , and Wilson v. ArkansasWilson v. Arkansas
Wilson v. Arkansas, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that police officers must "knock and announce" before entering a house.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514...
, .
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 374
- Miller v. United StatesMiller v. United StatesMiller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 , was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that one could not lawfully be arrested in one's home by officers breaking in without first giving one notice of their authority and purpose.In the District of Columbia, officers without a...
,