Ker v. California

Ker v. California (374 U.S. 23, 1963) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning the application of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in relation to searches and seizures conducted by state officers. The case specifically addressed whether a warrantless search and seizure conducted by California officers violated the rights of the defendants under the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background

The case originated when California law enforcement officers, acting on a tip, entered the apartment of George and Diane Ker without a warrant. The officers believed that Ker was involved in narcotics trafficking. Upon entering the apartment, the officers seized narcotics and arrested the Kers. The search was conducted without a warrant, and the evidence obtained was used to convict the Kers.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a split decision, upheld the convictions. The majority opinion, written by Justice Tom C. Clark, held that the search and seizure were reasonable under the circumstances and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that the officers had probable cause to believe that narcotics were in the apartment and that immediate action was necessary.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to act swiftly in cases where evidence might be destroyed.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice William O. Douglas, and Justice Arthur Goldberg. The dissent argued that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the majority's decision eroded the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Impact and Legacy

Ker v. California has had a significant impact on the jurisprudence surrounding the Fourth Amendment and its application by state officers. It is frequently cited in cases involving the reasonableness of warrantless searches and the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.

See Also

• Mapp v. Ohio
• Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Exclusionary rule
• Search and seizure