Writ of assistance

Last updated

A writ of assistance is a written order (a writ) issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff or a tax collector, to perform a certain task. Historically, several types of writs have been called "writs of assistance". [1] Most often, a writ of assistance is "used to enforce an order for the possession of lands". [2] When used to evict someone from real property, such a writ is also called a writ of restitution or a writ of possession. [3] In the area of customs, writs of assistance date from Colonial times. [4] They were issued by the Court of Exchequer to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs were called "writs of assistance" because they called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to "assist" the customs official in carrying out his duties. [5]

Contents

In general, customs writs of assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs became controversial when they were issued by courts in British America between 1755 and 1760 (then mirroring like writs having previously been issued, and being enforced, in the motherland by Britain's Exchequer Court), especially the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Controversy over these general writs of assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States of America. Though generally these colonial writs were no more onerous than the ones enforced in Britain, a fallacious 1760 London Magazine article asserted the writs issued in the motherland "...were specific, not general" thereby generating the perception in the colonies that the colonists were being treated unfairly. John Adams was to later assert that the ensuing court battle was the "seeds of the American Revolution." [6]

In colonial America

General writs of assistance played an important role in the increasing tensions that led to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. In 1760, Great Britain began to enforce some of the provisions of the Navigation Acts by granting customs officers these writs. In New England, smuggling had become common. However, officers could not search a person's property without giving a reason. Colonists protested that the writs violated their rights as British subjects.

Among the grounds the colonists opposed the writs were that they were permanent and even transferable; the holder of a writ could assign it to another; any place could be searched at the whim of the holder; and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused.

All writs of assistance expired six months after the death of the king, at which time new writs had to be obtained. With the death of King George II on 25 October 1760, all writs would expire on 25 April 1761. The crisis began on 27 December 1760 when news of King George II's death reached Boston and the people of Massachusetts learned that all writs faced termination. [7]

Paxton's case

Within three weeks, the writs were challenged by a group of 63 Boston merchants represented by fiery Boston attorney James Otis Jr. A countersuit was filed by a British customs agent Paxton, and together these are known as "Paxton's case". [8] Otis argued the famous writs of assistance case at the Old State House in Boston in February 1761 and again on 16 November 1761. Otis gave the speech of his life, making references to liberty, English common law, "a man's house is his castle," and the colonists's "rights as Englishmen." [9] [10] [11] [12]

The court ruled against the merchants. However, Otis's arguments were published in the colonies, and stirred widespread support for colonial rights. As a young lawyer John Adams observed the case in the packed courtroom. Moved by Otis's performance and legal arguments, he later declared that "Then and there the child Independence was born". [13] [11] [12] [14]

In a pamphlet published in 1765, Otis expanded his argument that the general writs violated the British unwritten constitution hearkening back to the Magna Carta. Any law in violation of the constitution or "natural law" which underlay it, he said, was void. [15]

Malcom Affair

A writ of assistance was used in an incident known as the "Malcom Affair", which was described by legal scholar William Cuddihy as "the most famous search in colonial America." [16] The episode demonstrated a fundamental difference between the colonists' view of their rights and the official British view of imperial law. "The Malcom affair was a minor matter, a comedy of blundering revenue officers and barricaded colonials," wrote legal historian John Phillip Reid, "but were we to dismiss it in haste we might run the risk of dismissing much of the story of the American Revolution."

On 24 September 1766, customs officials in Boston, with a deputy sheriff, searched merchant Daniel Malcom's home, which was also his place of business. They claimed the authority to do so by a writ of assistance issued to customs official Benjamin Hallowell, and the information of a confidential informant. Malcom allowed them to search, but denied them access to a locked cellar, arguing that they did not have the legal authority to break it open. According to customs officials, Malcom threatened to use force to prevent them from opening the door; according to Malcom and his supporters, his threat specified resisting any unlawful forced entry.

The officials left and returned with a specific search warrant, only to find that Malcom had locked his house. A crowd supportive of Malcom had gathered around the house; Tories claimed that this "mob" numbered 300 or more people and was hostile to the customs officers, while Whigs insisted that this was a peaceful gathering of about 50 curious onlookers, mostly boys. No violence occurred, but reports written by Governor Francis Bernard and the customs officials created the impression in Britain that a riot had taken place. The incident furthered Boston's reputation in Britain as a lawless town controlled by "mobs", a reputation that would contribute to the government's decision to send troops in 1768.

Although British officials, and some historians, described Malcom as acting in defiance of the law, the constitutional historian John Phillip Reid argued that Malcom's actions were lawful—so precisely lawful, in fact, that Reid speculated that Malcom may have been acting under the advice of his lawyer, James Otis. According to Reid, Malcom and Otis may have been attempting to provoke a lawsuit so that they could once again "challenge the validity of writs of assistance" in court. This was one of several incidents when a Boston merchant resisted a search with a seemingly exact knowledge of the law; John Hancock, a prominent merchant and well-known smuggler, would act in a similar manner when customs officials attempted to search his ship Lydia in 1768. [17]

End of colonial writs

Uncertainty about the legality of writs of assistance issued by colonial superior courts prompted Parliament to affirm that such writs were legal in the 1767 Townshend Acts. However, most colonial courts refused to issue general writs, and the Malcom case was apparently the last time a writ of assistance was issued in Boston.

Legacy

In response to the much-hated general writs, several of the colonies included a particularity requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they established independent governments in 1776; the phrase "particularity requirement" is the legal term of art used in period cases to refer to an express requirement that the target of a search warrant must be "particularly" described in detail. [18] Several years later, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also contained a particularity requirement that outlawed the use of writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) by the federal government. [19] Later, the Fourth Amendment was incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, [20] and writs of assistance were proscribed.

In the United Kingdom

Writs of assistance continue to have force in the United Kingdom and may be used by customs officers to enter any building by force and search and seize anything liable to forfeiture. The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that goods liable for forfeiture are kept on the premises and that the goods are likely to be removed, destroyed or lost before a search warrant can be obtained and executed. Writs of assistance are valid from the date of issue and cease to be valid six months after the end of the reign of the monarch under which the order was issued. [21]

In Canada

Until 1985, [22] four federal statutes in Canada—the Customs Act, Excise Tax Act, Food and Drugs Act , and Narcotic Control Act —provided that writs of assistance were to be granted to officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other federal officers, on a mandatory basis, for enforcement purposes. [23] [24] The notion of a writ of assistance in Canadian statute dates back at least to 1847, when a statute of the Province of Canada was passed providing for writs of assistance in customs enforcement; a statute of Nova Scotia referred to such a writ in 1834, while a New Brunswick statute dated to 1846. [25] [26]

Statutory writs of assistance were described by the Exchequer Court of Canada (now the Federal Court) as "in effect, search warrants unrelated to any particular suspected offence and of continuing operation, which are issued to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other officers in the service of the Government of Canada to have effect as long as the holder continues to hold the position by virtue of which the writ was issued to him." [27] Perhaps more concisely, one commentator described the legal effect of a writ of assistance as, "to all intents and purposes, a blanket warrant" which "authorizes the holder to search for particular things (e.g., controlled drugs or smuggled goods) anywhere and at any time." [28]

However, since judicial authorization was not required for any given search conducted pursuant to a writ of assistance, this characterization is somewhat misleading. Rather, as noted by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in a 1983 report, "[i]n essence, they are documents that identify their holders as members of a specific class of peace officers with special powers of warrantless search and seizure." [29] Moreover, although search warrants are subject to various common law requirements of particularity, the same was not evidently true for statutory writs of assistance. [30]

In 1984, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared statutory writs of assistance to be contrary to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . [31] Statutory writs of assistance were repealed in Canada in 1985. [22] [32]

Notes

  1. "Amendment IV: Writs of Assistance 1761–72". University of Chicago.
  2. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam, -Webster, 1996), 538.
  3. "Writ of Assistance Law & Legal Definition". U.S. Legal, Inc.
  4. Enactments of the British Parliament beginning with the Customs Act 1660 (12 Cha. 2. c. 19, s. 1) though the first mention of the phrase was in the follow-up Customs Act 1662 (14 Cha. 2. c. 11, s. 4). See:
    • Akhil Reed Amar, The Words That Made Us, p.11 (footnote 16), (Kindle Edition). See also George Elliott Howard, Preliminaries of the revolution, 1763–1775 (1906), p.73, and George G Wolkins "Writs of Assistance in England." In Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 66, pp. 357-364.
  5. Smith, Writs of Assistance Case, 29–34.
  6. Amar, Akhil Reed (2021). The Words That Made Us. New York: Basic Books. pp. 3–40. ISBN   978-0465096350.
  7. These facts are established by many sources including Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (3 vols. 1764–1828; 1765–1828)
  8. Court files Suffolk vol. 572 March 1765 no 100.5156 Application merchants 19 January 1761
  9. Sabine, Lorenzo. The American Loyalists, pp 328–9, Charles C. Little and James Brown, Boston, Massachusetts, 1847.
  10. Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live By, p 158, Hyperion, New York, New York, 2003. ISBN   0-7868-6720-5.
  11. 1 2 Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution, pp 21–23, Viking, New York, New York, 2005. ISBN   0-670-03420-7.
  12. 1 2 Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution, pp 46–7, Little, Brown & Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1943.
  13. Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live By, p 158, Hyperion, New York, New York, 2003. ISBN   0-7868-6720-5.
  14. Burns, Eric. Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism, pp 141–2, 201, Public Affairs, New York, New York, 2006. ISBN   978-1-58648-334-0.
  15. Josiah Quincy Reports of Cases...In the Superior Court of Judicature...Between 1761 and 1772, at 479–482 and in Appendix (Samuel Quincy, 1865)
  16. Otis H. Stephens and Richard A. Glenn, Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Rights and Liberties under the Law (ABC-CLIO, 2006), 39.
  17. Reid, Rebellious Spirit,12 – 32, 57 – 59, 135–36n32; Knollenberg, "Growth", 215
  18. See, e.g., Maryland v. Garrison , 480 U.S. 79 (1987).
  19. Smith, Writs of Assistance Case, 5.
  20. Stanford v. Texas , 379 U.S. 476 (1965).
  21. "Customs and Excise Management Act 1979". National Archives.
  22. 1 2 Burchill, John W. (2019). "Persistence and Variability of DNA: Penile Washings and Intimate Bodily Examinations in Sex-Related Offences". Manitoba Law Journal. 42 (4): 81 via CanLII.
  23. Trasewick, E. W. (1962–1963). "Search Warrants and Writs of Assistance". Criminal Law Quarterly. 5: 341 via WestlawNext Canada.
  24. Stuart, Don (2000). "Time to Recodify Criminal Law and Rise above Law and Order Expediency: Lessons from the Manitoba Warriors Prosecution". Manitoba Law Journal. 28 (1): 103–04 via CanLII.
  25. Parker, "Extraordinary Power," 709–10, citing 10 & 11 Vic. c. 31, s. 69; 4 Wm. IV c. 50, s. 6; and 9 Vic. c. 2, s. 13.
  26. Walz, Jay (6 September 1970). "'No-Knock' Writs Issue in Canada". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 June 2020.
  27. Re Writs of Assistance, [1965] 2 Ex CR 645, 1965 CarswellNat 337 (Exchequer Court) at para 2.
  28. Faulkner, John (1971). "Writs of Assistance in Canada". Alberta Law Review. 9: 386.
  29. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Police Powers, section 84 (p. 35).
  30. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Police Powers, section 90 (p. 37).
  31. R v Noble (1984), 48 OR (2d) 643, 1984 CanLII 2156 (Ont CA).
  32. R.S.C 1985, c. C-40, s. 132; R.S.C. 1985, c. E-12; R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27, s. 37(1)(a); R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, s. 10(1)(a). See Criminal Law Amendment, 1985, R.S.C. 1985 C-19, ss. 190, 191, 196, 200. See also s. 211.

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 and 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.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. There is no universally accepted definition or formulation for probable cause. One traditional definition, which comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision Beck v. Ohio, is when "whether at [the moment of arrest] the facts and circumstances within [an officer's] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had committed or was committing an offense."

A warrant is generally an order that serves as a specific type of authorization, that is, a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, that permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sir Francis Bernard, 1st Baronet</span> British colonial administrator

Sir Francis Bernard, 1st Baronet was a British colonial administrator who served as governor of the provinces of New Jersey and Massachusetts Bay. His uncompromising policies and harsh tactics in Massachusetts angered the colonists and were instrumental in the building of broad-based opposition within the province to the rule of Parliament in the events leading to the American Revolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Townshend Acts</span> Political precursor to the American Revolution

The Townshend Acts or Townshend Duties were a series of British acts of Parliament passed during 1767 and 1768 introducing a series of taxes and regulations to fund administration of the British colonies in America. They are named after the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed the programme. Historians vary slightly as to which acts they include under the heading "Townshend Acts", but five are often listed:

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

An information is a formal criminal charge which begins a criminal proceeding in the courts. The information is one of the oldest common law pleadings, and is nearly as old as the better-known indictment, with which it has always coexisted.

Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. While this principle had been outlined in other cases, such as Mapp v. Ohio, this case added another level of constitutional consideration for the issuance of search warrants when articles of expression, protected by the First Amendment, are among the items to be taken. In effect, when a state issues a warrant that includes the order to seize books, it must accord the "most scrupulous exactitude" to the language of the Fourth Amendment.

In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. Generally speaking, searches within 100 miles of the border are more permissible without a warrant than those conducted elsewhere in the U.S. The doctrine also allows federal agents to search people at border crossings without a warrant or probable cause. The government is allowed to use scanning devices and to search personal electronics. Invasive bodily searches, however, require reasonable suspicion.

The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

Stephen Sewall was a judge in colonial Massachusetts. Born in Salem, Massachusetts, he was the son of Stephen Sewall, the clerk of court at the Salem witchcraft trials, and a nephew of Chief Justice Samuel Sewall, who presided at the witchcraft trials. He was the uncle of lawyer Jonathan Sewall and of the poet, lawyer and patriot, Jonathan Mitchell Sewall of Portsmouth, NH.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Otis Sr.</span> American lawyer

James Otis Sr. (1702–1778) was a prominent lawyer in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. His sons James Otis Jr. and Samuel Allyne Otis also rose to prominence, as did his daughter Mercy Otis Warren. He was often called "Colonel James" because of his military rank and also to distinguish between him and his famous son. He was a stalwart member of the Popular Party, as was his son, in Boston, Massachusetts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Otis Jr.</span> 18th-century colonial American lawyer and political activist

James Otis Jr. was an American lawyer, political activist, colonial legislator, and early supporter of patriotic causes in Massachusetts Bay Colony at the beginning of the Revolutionary Era. Otis was a fervent opponent of the writs of assistance imposed by Great Britain on the American colonies in the early 1760s which allowed law enforcement officials to search private property without cause. He later expanded his criticism of British authority to include tax measures that were being enacted by Parliament. As a result, Otis is often incorrectly credited with coining the slogan "taxation without representation is tyranny".

Benjamin Goldthwait (1704–1761) was a British army officer who served in King George's War and the French and Indian War. He fought in the Siege of Louisbourg (1745). He arrived in Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia in 1746 and then fought in the Battle of Grand Pre. He then fought during the French and Indian War in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ezekiel Goldthwait</span> American politician

Ezekiel Goldthwait was an American merchant and landowner. Born in Boston, the capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, he rose to become on the city's leading citizens in the years leading to the American Revolution.

"A Bolt of Lightning" was an American television play broadcast on November 12, 1951, as part of the CBS television series, Studio One. It was a historical drama portraying James Otis Jr. (1725–1783) and his 1761 prosecution of the Paxton's case, contesting Britain's use of writs of assistance to conduct warrantless searches of the colonists' property. Charlton Heston, at age 28, starred as Otis.

References

Further reading