Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ker Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 10, 1963

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

75 entries 4 linked 71 unlinked
Show
  1. Pierre Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1939
  2. United States Vs. Rabinowitz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  3. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  4. Cleary Vs. Bolger US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1962
  5. U.S. 23 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Ker v. California
    Search
  6. U.S. 23 (1963) Ker v. California
    Search
  7. as defined in the Fourth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  8. V), and announced the judgment of the Court. This case raises search and seizure questions under the rule of Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  9. Page 374 U. S. 30 obtained by means of unlawful searches and seizures was inadmissible in criminal trials. People v. Cahan
    Search
  10. that, in view of its findings and the implied findings of the trial court, this Court's intervening decision in Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  11. Cal.App.2d, at 257, 15 Cal.Rptr., at 773. I In Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  12. at 367 U. S. 646 -647, 367 U. S. 657 , we followed Boyd v. United
    Search
  13. whose decision voluntarily to adopt the exclusionary rule in 1955 has been commended by us previously. See Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  14. Elkins v. United
    Search
  15. McNabb v. United
    Search
  16. Miller v. United
    Search
  17. Nardone v. United
    Search
  18. Mapp, however, established no assumption by this Court of supervisory authority over state courts, cf. Cleary v. Bolger
    Search
  19. rather, it echoed the sentiment of Elkins v. United
    Search
  20. of legality even from the Ohio Supreme Court. Id., at 367 U. S. 643 -645. This is true also of Elkins v. United
    Search
  21. Gouled v. United
    Search
  22. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  23. United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  24. Rios v. United
    Search
  25. constitutional rights, findings of state courts are by no means insulated against examination here. See, e.g., Spano v. New
    Search
  26. Thomas v. Arizona
    Search
  27. the concomitant command that evidence so seized is inadmissible against one who has standing to complain. See Jones v. United
    Search
  28. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  29. States, 338 U. S. 160 , 338 U. S. 175 -176 (1949), quoting from Carroll v. United
    Search
  30. People v. Fischer
    Search
  31. Bompensiero v. Superior
    Search
  32. Murphy himself. That this information was hearsay does not destroy its role in establishing probable cause. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  33. States,supra. In Draper v. United
    Search
  34. Johnson v. United
    Search
  35. came within a judicial exception which had been engrafted upon the statute by a series of decisions, see, e.g., People v. Ruiz
    Search
  36. People v. Maddox
    Search
  37. Keiningham v. United
    Search
  38. those of the California statute, both statutes including a requirement of notice of authority and purpose. In Miller v. United
    Search
  39. Finally, the basis of the judicial exception to the California statute, as expressed by Justice Traynor in People v. Maddox
    Search
  40. s peril would have been increased or the arrest frustrated had he demanded entrance and stated his purpose. ( Read v. Case
    Search
  41. recognized as consistent with the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Marron v. United
    Search
  42. Harris v. United
    Search
  43. Abel v. United
    Search
  44. imposed no requirement that the arrest be under authority of an arrest warrant, but only that it be lawful. See Marron v. United
    Search
  45. Agnello v. United
    Search
  46. a warrant is not the controlling factor when a search is sought to be justified as incident to arrest, United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  47. Thus, the facts bear no resemblance to those in Trupiano v. United
    Search
  48. to secure a search warrant. The search of the petitioners' apartment was well within the limits upheld in Harris v. United
    Search
  49. did not constitute a search, since the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view. United States v. Lee
    Search
  50. People v. West
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial