''Boyd v. United States'', 116 U.S. 616 (1886) was a decision by the

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

in which the Court held that "a search and seizure asequivalent oa compulsory production of a man's private papers" and that the search was "an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

Background

Thirty-five cases of

plate glass Plate glass, flat glass or sheet glass is a type of glass, initially produced in plane form, commonly used for windows, glass doors, transparent walls, and windscreens. For modern architectural and automotive applications, the flat glass is s ...

were seized at the Port of New York for not paying import duties. To prove the case, the government compelled E.A. Boyd & Sons to produce their invoice from the Union Plate Glass Company of Liverpool, England. Boyd complied but claimed the order was a form of

self-incrimination In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another ersonin a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof". (Self-incriminati ...

Decision

In the published opinion, after citing Lord Camden's judgment in '' Entick v Carrington'', 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, Justice Bradley said (630): Although not expressly overruled, some aspects of the Supreme Court's opinion in ''Boyd'' have been limited or negated by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. For example, in the case of '' Fisher v. United States'' in 1976, the Supreme Court stated: ::The proposition that the Fifth Amendment prevents compelled production of documents over objection that such production might incriminate stems from ''Boyd v. United States'', 116 U.S. 616 (1886)..... Among its several pronouncements, Boyd was understood to declare that the seizure, under warrant or otherwise, of any purely evidentiary materials violated the Fourth Amendment and that the Fifth Amendment rendered these seized materials inadmissible. .... Several of Boyd's express or implicit declarations have not stood the test of time. The application of the Fourth Amendment to subpoenas was limited by '' Hale v. Henkel'', 201 U.S. 43 (1906), and more recent cases. See, e. g., '' Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling'', 327 U.S. 186 (1946). Purely evidentiary (but "nontestimonial") materials, as well as contraband and fruits and instrumentalities of crime, may now be searched for and seized under proper circumstances, .... Also, any notion that "testimonial" evidence may never be seized and used in evidence is inconsistent with ''

Katz v. United States ''Katz v. United States'', 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutio ...

'', 389 U.S. 347 (1967); '' Osborn v. United States'', 385 U.S. 323 (1966); and '' Berger v. New York'', 388 U.S. 41 (1967), approving the seizure under appropriate circumstances of conversations of a person suspected of crime. See also '' Marron v. United States'', 275 U.S. 192 (1927)...... It is also clear that the Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence but applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating.....'' Fisher v. United States'', 425 U.S. 391 (1976).

References

External links

* {{US4thAmendment, scope, state=expanded United States Supreme Court cases United States Fourth Amendment case law 1886 in United States case law United States grand jury case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Waite Court Port of New York and New Jersey

Background

Decision

See also

References

Further reading

External links