Changes

In ''Ker v. California'', 374 U.S. 23 (1963), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that State procedures for seizing evidence must conform to [[federal]] procedures as defined by judicial interpretations of the [[Fourth Amendment]].  Previously State criminal procedures for searches and seizures need only comply with the more flexible requirements of [[due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], rather than strict and complex [[federal]] interpretation of the [[Fourth Amendment]].

In '''''Ker v. California''''', 374 U.S. 23 (1963), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that State procedures for seizing evidence must conform to [[federal]] procedures as defined by judicial interpretations of the [[Fourth Amendment]].  Previously State criminal procedures for searches and seizures need only comply with the more flexible requirements of [[due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], rather than strict and complex [[federal]] interpretation of the [[Fourth Amendment]].

The Court expanded this power in a case in which it affirmed a state court decision.  This is often how the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has taken new authority, by declaring it has the new power but not using it in the decision in which it claims the authority.  ''See, e.g.'', ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]''.

The Court expanded this power in a case in which it affirmed a state court decision.  This is often how the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has taken new authority, by declaring it has the new power but not using it in the decision in which it claims the authority.  ''See, e.g.'', ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]''.