“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Common Law Background of the Fourth Amendment
Semayne’s Case
5 Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
Facts
Richard Gresham and George Berisford shared a home in London. Berisford died and left his belongings to Peter Semayne. Semayne had to sue Gresham to get the goods in his possession. The Sheriff of London had a writ of execution and entered Gresham’s home by force, breaking down the door, to seize Semayne’s goods and chattels.
Issue
The question was whether in executing a writ, the sheriff had the right, after being denied entry, to break into the defendant's house to do execution if the door was closed.
Held
No. The sheriff did not have the right to break into another man’s home to execute a civil writ.
Rationale
Application
A man has the right to defend his home against illegal entry.
Legal/Historical Significance
Semayne’s Case is the root of the 4th Amendment’s “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Also relates to the “knock and entry” rule (Arcila, 2007).
Entick v. Carrington
19 Howell's State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. 807 (1705)
Facts
John Wilkes was a Member of Parliament who wrote seditious articles that angered King George. A general warrant was issued to search John Entick’s home and seize Wilke’s anti-government publications titled "The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380, London, printed to J. Wilson and J. Fell in Paternoster Row,” and all of Entick’s papers and documents. Nathan Carrington, the Kings’ Chief messenger, forced his way into Entick’s home, broke into locked rooms and boxes during the search, and seized Entick’s personal goods and chattels. Entick sued Carrington and thee other defendants for trespass on grounds that the general warrant was not legal.
Issue
Was the general warrant to seize all of the plaintiff’s papers and documents legal?
Held
No, the general warrant to seize all of the plaintiff’s papers and documents legal was not legal. Therefore, the defendants were guilty of trespass.
Rationale
“Every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass.”
The warrant was not legal for two reasons: (1) it was not issued on a showing of probable cause, and (2) it did not specify the goods or chattels to be searched for and seized.
Legal/Historical Significance
Entick is the root to the 4th Amendment’s “..no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.. and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Entick holds that a warrant has to have probable cause and particularity.
References
5 Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
19 Howell's State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. 807 (1705)
Arcila, F. (2007) In the Trenches: Searches and the Misunderstood Common Law History
of Suspicion and Probable Cause. University of Pennsylvania Journal of
Constitutional Law 10, p. 1.
Retrieved from: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1026317
Constitution of the United Ststes
Retrieved from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html/
