Semayne's case

Last updated

Semayne's case
Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg
Court Court of King's Bench
Full case namePeter Semayne v Richard Gresham
DecidedMichaelmas Term, 1604
Citation(s)All ER Rep 62
5 Co Rep 91 a
Cro Eliz 908
Moore KB 668
Yelv 29
77 ER 194
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John Popham CJ
Francis Gawdy J
Edward Fenner J
Christopher Yelverton J
David Williams J
Keywords
Knock-and-announce rule; Castle doctrine

Semayne's Case (January 1, 1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91, is an English common law case reported by Sir Edward Coke, who was then the Attorney General of England. In the United States, it is recognized as establishing the "knock-and-announce" rule.

Contents

Facts

Richard Gresham and George Berisford were joint tenants of a house in Blackfriars, London. Berisford died while in debt to Peter Semayne. Semayne then secured a civil writ of attachment on Berisford's goods, which were located inside the house. [1] After the Sheriff of London was denied entry by Gresham, the sheriff offered to break and enter into the house. Instead, Semayne sued, bringing an action on the case against Gresham for his losses. [2]

Initially, the court could not reach a decision, with Lord Chief Justice John Popham and Lord Justice Francis Gawdy believing the sheriff could break and enter, while Lord Justices Edward Fenner and Christopher Yelverton insisting he could not. [1] After the English coronation of King James VI and I and the appointment of Lord Justice David Williams to the bench, the case was reargued. [1]

Judgment

In 1604, the Court of King's Bench gave judgment against Semayne. [3] The court resolved:

As authority, Coke reported citation to a statute enacted by King Edward III of England in 1275, which he said merely affirmed the pre-existing common law. [4]

The holding of the case can best be summed by Coke's words:

[I]n all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may (if the doors be not open) break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the King's process, if he cannot otherwise enter. But he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open the doors. [5]

The case is also famous for Coke's quote:

the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose. [6]

Influence

In 1605, Coke published the case in the fifth volume of his Reports. After his Petition of Right, Coke, in his Institutes of the Lawes of England , adopted the view alone that warrants issued on bare suspicion violate Magna Carta . [1] After the Interregnum, Sir Matthew Hale wrote in his Historia Placitorum Coronæ that an arrest without a warrant could be made by forced entry. [1]

After the Glorious Revolution, William Hawkins and Sir Michael Foster thought no forced entry was permissible if a warrant issued on bare suspicion. [1] In his Commentaries on the Laws of England , Sir William Blackstone emphasized the castle doctrine but took the view that forced entry was permitted if the suspected felony had actually occurred. [1]

The rule was relied upon in the landmark case of Entick v Carrington [KB 1765], when Lord Camden held that no general warrant could issue on suspicion of seditious libel. [1] Lord Mansfield, however, was skeptical of limits to forced entry by holding in 1772 that officials were allowed to obtain entry by fraud and in 1774 that the limit applied only to a dwelling's outer door. [1]

The sentiment of "an Englishman's home is his castle" became very popular, [7] with William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham famously speaking against the Cider Bill of 1763 by telling Parliament:

The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; but all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. [1]

Blackstone’s language on the castle doctrine was also very popular in the United States, where it was widely followed by state courts. [1] In Miller v. United States (1958), the US Supreme Court recognized that police must give notice before making a forced entry and in Ker v. California (1963), a divided Court discovered that the limitation was extended to the states by the US Constitution. [1]

However, in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) the US Supreme Court created an exception to prevent the destruction of evidence and in Hudson v. Michigan (2006), it held in a 5–4 vote that the exclusionary rule does not require the suppression of evidence seized by police during an illegal forced entry. [8]

Recently, police in the United States often give no notice before forced home entry during the widespread use of no-knock warrants. [8]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Blakey, G. Robert (1964). "The Rule of Announcement and Unlawful Entry: Miller v. United States and Ker v. California". University of Pennsylvania Law Review . 112 (4): 499–562. doi:10.2307/3310634. JSTOR   3310634 . Retrieved 23 March 2017.
  2. "Semayne's Case" (PDF).
  3. Sir Edward Coke, The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke, ed. Steve Sheppard (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003). Vol. 1. 3/22/2017.
  4. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, at 932 fn. 2 citing 5 Co. Rep., at 91b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 196 (referring to 3 Edw. I, ch. 17).
  5. 5 Co. Rep. at 91a.
  6. 77 Eng. Rep. 195.
  7. "'An Englishman's home is his castle' – the meaning and origin of this phrase".
  8. 1 2 Sack, Kevin (19 March 2017). "Door-Busting Raids Leave Trail of Blood - The Heavy Toll of Using SWAT Teams for Search Warrants". The New York Times . p. A1. Retrieved 21 March 2017.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Due process of law is application by state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to the case so all legal rights that are owed to the person are respected. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matthew Hale (jurist)</span> English jurist and scholar (1609–1676)

Sir Matthew Hale was an influential English barrister, judge and jurist most noted for his treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ, or The History of the Pleas of the Crown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Coke</span> English lawyer and judge

Sir Edward Coke was an English barrister, judge, and politician. He is often considered the greatest jurist of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry</span> English politician

Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry was a prominent English lawyer, politician and judge during the early 17th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden</span> 18th-century English lawyer, judge, and politician

Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, PC was an English lawyer, judge and Whig politician who was first to hold the title of Earl Camden. As a lawyer and judge he was a leading proponent of civil liberties, championing the rights of the jury, and limiting the powers of the State in leading cases such as Entick v Carrington.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Justice of the Common Pleas</span>

The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was the head of the Court of Common Pleas, also known as the Common Bench or Common Place, which was the second-highest common law court in the English legal system until 1875, when it, along with the other two common law courts and the equity and probate courts, became part of the High Court of Justice. As such, the chief justice of the Common Pleas was one of the highest judicial officials in England, behind only the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England, who headed the King's Bench.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Distraint</span> Seizure of property to obtain payments

Distraint or distress is "the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed", especially in common law countries. Distraint is the act or process "whereby a person, traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor's land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury." Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods (chattels) belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent. In the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Today, some kind of court action is usually required, the main exception being certain tax authorities – such as HM Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom and the Internal Revenue Service in the United States – and other agencies that retain the legal power to levy assets without a court order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Knock-and-announce</span> United States law criminal procedure

Knock-and-announce, in United States law criminal procedure, is an ancient common law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a search.

Sir William Constable, 1st Baronet was an English soldier, politician and regicide, who supported the Parliamentary cause during the English Civil War and interregnum.

<i>Entick v Carrington</i>

Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 is a leading case in English law and UK constitutional law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power. The case has also been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is famous for the dictum of Lord Camden: "If it is law, it will be found in our books."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gresham, Norfolk</span> Human settlement in England

Gresham is a village and civil parish in North Norfolk, England, five miles (8 km) south-west of Cromer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Common Pleas (England)</span> English court for disputes between commoners (c. 1200 – 1880)

The Court of Common Pleas, or Common Bench, was a common law court in the English legal system that covered "common pleas"; actions between subject and subject, which did not concern the king. Created in the late 12th to early 13th century after splitting from the Exchequer of Pleas, the Common Pleas served as one of the central English courts for around 600 years. Authorised by Magna Carta to sit in a fixed location, the Common Pleas sat in Westminster Hall for its entire existence, joined by the Exchequer of Pleas and Court of King's Bench.

In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property. It is issued under the belief that any evidence they hope to find may be destroyed between the time that police identify themselves and the time they secure the area, or in the event where there is a large perceived threat to officer safety during the execution of the warrant.

<i>Case of Suttons Hospital</i>

Case of Sutton's Hospital (1612) 77 Eng Rep 960 is an old common law case decided by Sir Edward Coke. It concerned The Charterhouse, London which was held to be a properly constituted corporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of King's Bench (England)</span> English common law court (c. 1200–1873)

The Court of King's Bench, formally known as The Court of the King Before the King Himself, was a court of common law in the English legal system. Created in the late 12th to early 13th century from the curia regis, the King's Bench initially followed the monarch on his travels. The King's Bench finally joined the Court of Common Pleas and Exchequer of Pleas in Westminster Hall in 1318, making its last travels in 1421. The King's Bench was merged into the High Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, after which point the King's Bench was a division within the High Court. The King's Bench was staffed by one Chief Justice and usually three Puisne Justices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Atkyns (judge)</span>

Sir Robert Atkyns (1620–1710) was an English Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, Member of parliament, and Speaker of the House of Lords.

The Five Knights' case (1627) 3 How St Tr 1, is a case in English law, and now United Kingdom constitutional law, fought by five knights in 1627 against forced loans placed on them by King Charles I in a common law court.

<i>Slades Case</i> Case in English contract law that ran from 1596 to 1602.

Slade's Case was a case in English contract law that ran from 1596 to 1602. Under the medieval common law, claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters could only be pursued through a writ of debt in the Court of Common Pleas, a problematic and archaic process. By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded in creating another method, enforced by the Court of King's Bench, through the action of assumpsit, which was technically for deceit. The legal fiction used was that by failing to pay after promising to do so, a defendant had committed deceit, and was liable to the plaintiff. The conservative Common Pleas, through the appellate court the Court of Exchequer Chamber, began to overrule decisions made by the King's Bench on assumpsit, causing friction between the courts.

<i>Calvins Case</i> 1608 English legal decision

Calvin's Case (1608), 77 ER 377, (1608) Co Rep 1a, also known as the Case of the Postnati, was a 1608 English legal decision establishing that a child born in Scotland, after the Union of the Crowns under King James VI and I in 1603, was considered under the common law to be an English subject and entitled to the benefits of English law. Calvin's Case was eventually adopted by courts in the United States, and the case played an important role in shaping the American rule of birthright citizenship via jus soli.