|
|



Other preFounding sources for the exclusionary rule |
Sir William Meredith's Reply to the Defence of the Majority U.S. Library holdings of this 1764 pamphlet In the wake of the British Wilkes affair, Sir William Meredith introduced a series of bills intended to severely restrict royal searches and seizures. In a contemporaneous pamphlet, he called for exclusion of illegally seized evidence. |
Lord Temple's Letter on the Seizure of Papers U.S. library holdings of this 1763 This pamphlet, purportedly written by a prominent member of the House of Lords, stated exclusion was required to remedy search and seizure violations. Any court precedents holding otherwise, wrote Temple, were rendered during the despotic Stuart regimes. |
Father of Candor's A Letter Concerning Libels, Warrants, the seizure of Papers U.S. Library holdings of this 1765 pamphlet The British author "Father of Candor" (real name unknown) wrote and had published hundreds of copies of a pamphlet promoting the exclusion of illegally seized evidence and linking search and seizure principles with silence rights. |
The four tables below provide U.S. library holdings of three distinct sources of law and advocacy that were published prior to the ratification of the Fourth Amendment. Each of these sources suggest or proclaim that exclusion of evidence is the (or an) appropriate remedy for search-and-seizure violations. Table 1 lays out all of the known (to me, Roger Roots) libraries and archives which hold copies of Francis Hargrave's 1781 work A Complete Collection of State Trials, 4th edition. (This list was mostly compiled from WorldCat and ESTC but also from cites like Abe's Books, which offers two original sets for sale under $2,000.) Hargrave's State Trials (4th ed.) is important because it provided the full report of the famous Entick v. Carrington decision written by Judge Charles Pratt in 1765. In a paragraph found on the last page of the opinion in Volume 11 of the 11-volume set of State Trials, Pratt indicated that the same principle that prevents illegally-gained confessions from being admitted into evidence in criminal trials (exclusion) should apply to evidence illegally gained from searches or seizures. Language found on the last page of the Entick opinion explicitly recognizing that the right to remain silent is implicated by the search and seizure of papers and other evidence. "It is very certain that the law obligeth no man to accuse himself," wrote the judge in Entick, "and it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed upon the same principle." Thus, exclusion-"the same principle" applied in cases of compelled oral statements since time immemorial-should likewise be applied in cases of illegally taken writings and other evidence. More than 100 of these sets survive in rare book libraries throughout the United States. I have personally examined at least 30 of them for evidence of their prior ownership and dates of travel to the American colonies. Thus far I have identified two sets that were previously held by individuals with ties to the Constitution's ratification conventions. One set held at Yale Law Library seems to have been previously owned by Matthew Griswold, an early governor of Connecticut who presided over the Connecticut State convention that ratified the Constitution. Another set, held by Columbia Law Library, belonged to James Kent, an early chancellor of New York who was a close friend and protégé of Alexander Hamilton. Although Kent was just beginning his long and illustrious career as a lawyer at the time of the Constitution's ratification, he is known to have been an active champion of the Constitution at the New York state ratifying convention. TABLE 1. U.S. LIBRARIES HOLDING SETS OF HARGRAVE'S COMPLETE COLLECTION OF STATE TRIALS, 4TH EDITION (1781) |
The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule (cont.) |
Early Documents Predicting the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule |
No Copyright. Please Copy , Forward, Discuss, and Circulate. |
Website Themes by CoffeeCup Software |