Ker v. California
Ker v. California is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the standards for warrantless searches and seizures by state authorities. The case arose when California law enforcement entered the apartment of George and Diane Ker without a warrant, using a passkey, and discovered marijuana. In a tightly contested 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Kers' convictions, although the justices were divided on the application of federal standards to state actions. A plurality opinion, authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, concluded that California had adhered to the necessary standards, while other justices, including Chief Justice Earl Warren, argued for uniform adherence to strict federal standards. Justice John M. Harlan II, conversely, favored a more flexible approach for state compliance. The ruling also referenced the exclusionary rule established in Mapp v. Ohio, which remains a critical consideration in search and seizure cases. Overall, Ker v. California highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between state authority and federal constitutional protections in criminal procedure.
Ker v. California
Date: June 10, 1963
Citation: 374 U.S. 23
Issue: Search and seizure
Significance: The Supreme Court defined the extent to which the federal rules covering searches and seizures should apply to the states.
California authorities entered the apartment of George and Diane Ker using a passkey and conducted a warrantless search during which they found and seized marijuana. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld their convictions, but the Court was divided about the facts of the case. Eight justices held that the state was required to adhere to federal standards, but a plurality of four, in an opinion written by Tom C. Clark, held that California had met those standards. Justice John M. Harlan II concurred in the result, but apparently was the only justice who thought that states should be held to a more flexible standard than the federal government. Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., Arthur J. Goldberg, and William O. Douglas agreed that the states should be held to the same strict standards as the federal government when conducting searches and seizures but did not believe the actions of the California authorities should qualify under federal standards. The exclusionary rule applied in the Mapp v. Ohio (1961) decision remained a weapon for use by the Court even after this decision.
