Ker v. California
374 U.S. 23 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's standard of reasonableness for searches and seizures is the same for both state and federal governments. A state officer's unannounced entry into a dwelling to make an arrest may be constitutionally reasonable if justified by exigent circumstances, such as a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being destroyed.
Facts:
- Police officers were surveilling a known narcotics dealer, Roland Murphy.
- An undercover officer observed Murphy meet with a man named Terrhagen, which resulted in a sale of marijuana to the officer.
- The next day, officers observed Murphy have a similar rendezvous with George Ker; the circumstances strongly suggested a narcotics transaction was occurring.
- After the meeting, Ker drove away and made a U-turn in the middle of a block, causing the pursuing officers to lose sight of him.
- The officers identified Ker and his address through his vehicle registration.
- Another officer on the team, Officer Berman, had prior information from a reliable informant that Ker was selling marijuana from his apartment and that Murphy was his supplier.
- Believing Ker might destroy evidence, officers obtained a passkey from the building manager and entered the Kers' apartment quietly without knocking or announcing their purpose.
- Upon entry, officers saw George Ker in the living room and his wife, Diane Ker, emerging from the kitchen, where an officer then observed a brick of marijuana in plain view on a scale.
Procedural Posture:
- George and Diane Ker were charged in California state court with possession of marijuana.
- Prior to trial, the Kers moved to set aside the information on the ground that they were committed without probable cause; the trial court denied the motion.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted the petitioners.
- The petitioners appealed to the California District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the convictions.
- The petitioners sought a hearing from the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition.
- The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of evidence seized by state officers without a warrant violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, when the officers made an unannounced entry into a private residence based on probable cause for arrest and a belief that evidence might be destroyed?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, was not violated. The standard for reasonableness is the same for states and the federal government, and the lawfulness of a state arrest is determined by state law, provided it meets federal constitutional standards. Here, the officers had probable cause to arrest George Ker based on their surveillance and information from a reliable informant. The unannounced entry was justified by exigent circumstances, as the officers reasonably believed, based on Ker's furtive conduct and the destructible nature of narcotics, that he might destroy evidence if they announced their presence. Because the arrest was lawful and the marijuana was in plain view, the subsequent seizure of evidence was constitutional.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
This opinion concurs in the result only. It argues against applying the same Fourth Amendment standards to the states. Instead, state searches and seizures should be judged by the more flexible 'fundamental fairness' standard of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Under that standard, the police conduct in this case was not fundamentally unfair, so the conviction should be affirmed.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The unannounced intrusion by police into the Kers' home violated the Fourth Amendment, making the subsequent arrests and search illegal. The common-law requirement that officers announce their authority and purpose before entering a home is a core component of the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy. Any exception to this rule must be narrowly construed, such as when occupants are already aware of the police presence or are actively attempting to destroy evidence. In this case, the Kers were completely unaware of the officers, and there was no specific evidence of an attempt to destroy contraband; relying on a generalized belief that narcotics suspects might destroy evidence creates an exception that swallows the rule and violates the presumption of innocence. Therefore, the entry was unreasonable, and the evidence should have been excluded.
Analysis:
Ker v. California is a significant case for clarifying the application of Mapp v. Ohio, which extended the exclusionary rule to the states. The decision affirms that a single standard of 'reasonableness' under the Fourth Amendment applies to both state and federal law enforcement. However, the fractured opinion also demonstrates the Court's deference to state law in defining the procedural requirements for a lawful arrest, so long as those procedures are themselves constitutionally reasonable. This case established an important precedent allowing for 'no-knock' entries based on the exigent circumstance of potential evidence destruction, an exception that has become particularly influential in narcotics cases.
Unlock the full brief for Ker v. California