Ker v. California Case Brief

Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623 (1963)

FACTS: Deputy sheriffs investigating illegal drug trafficking bought drugs from Murphy and Terrhagen, the transaction taking place at a secluded location. (The deputy recognized Murphy, the “connection’” from a mug shot, where he had been identified as a “large scale seller of marijuana,” currently out on bail.)

The next day, surveillance revealed Murphy making contact with Ker at the same secluded location. Although it was dark, the deputies believed that a drug pass had taken place. Once they determined Ker’s identity, one of the deputies stated that he had received information from a reliable informant that Ker was a drug dealer who had gotten marijuana from Murphy in the past. The officers followed Ker until Ker made a U-turn in the middle of a street, then they lost him. Believing that Ker was in possession of illegal drugs, and that their surveillance had been “made,” the deputies went directly to Ker’s apartment, where they found the same car they had been following. They obtained a passkey from the manager and entered the apartment. They found Ker in the living room. Diane Ker, Ker’s wife, came from the kitchen into the living room when the deputies entered. One deputy went to the kitchen door to secure Diana Ker and saw a large brick of marijuana on a scale in the kitchen. Both Kers were arrested, and the marijuana in the kitchen was seized.

Following the arrest, the deputies found more marijuana in the kitchen and a package on top of the chest in the bedroom. The next day, the deputies learned that Diane Ker also owned a vehicle and they located and searched that vehicle as well, without a warrant. They discovered marijuana and seeds in the glove compartment and under the seat.

Both Ker and his wife claim the entry and arrest without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court upheld the entry and allowed the introduction of the evidence, which led to the conviction of both of the Kers.

ISSUE:

1) Did the warrantless entry by the deputies, without a warrant and without knocking and announcing their intent to enter, for the purpose of making a narcotics arrest, make the evidence inadmissible?

2) Were the subsequent searches of the apartment lawful?

HOLDING:

1) No

2) Yes

DISCUSSION: The Court held that the surreptitious entry into the apartment was justified because the deputies were investigating narcotics, which was an exigent circumstance, and held that the arrests of the Kers were lawful. The deputies also argued that the drugs found just prior to and after the arrests were lawfully seized as incident to arrest, while the Kers argued that the deputies could have, and should have, gotten a warrant. However, the Court agreed with the prosecution that the deputies’ actions were appropriate given the circumstances. The deputies entered with the purpose of arresting George Ker, and were in the process of making the arrests when the marijuana was kitchen was spotted.