Boyd v. United States
116 U.S. 616 (1886)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governmental compulsion to produce private papers to be used as evidence in a quasi-criminal proceeding to forfeit property is equivalent to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Facts:
- E. A. Boyd & Sons imported thirty-five cases of plate glass into the port of New York.
- The United States government initiated a forfeiture proceeding, alleging that Boyd & Sons had attempted to defraud the government of customs duties.
- To prove its case, the government needed evidence of the quantity and value of twenty-nine cases of glass previously imported by Boyd & Sons.
- The invoice for these twenty-nine cases, containing the necessary evidence, was in the private possession of Boyd & Sons.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil information in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking the forfeiture of thirty-five cases of plate glass.
- During the trial, the District Court, under the authority of a federal statute, ordered the claimants, E. A. Boyd & Sons, to produce an invoice for different merchandise.
- The claimants produced the invoice under protest, arguing the order and the statute were unconstitutional.
- The invoice was admitted into evidence, and the jury returned a verdict for the United States, leading to a judgment of forfeiture.
- The claimants appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court, which affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The claimants then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute that requires a defendant in a civil forfeiture proceeding to produce their private business records, where failure to do so results in the government's allegations being taken as confessed, violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bradley
Yes. A federal statute compelling production of private papers in a forfeiture case, with a penalty of confession for non-compliance, violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. A forfeiture proceeding, while civil in form, is criminal in nature, thereby triggering the protections of both amendments. The compulsory production of private papers is tantamount to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it achieves the same result—forcing from a party evidence against himself. Furthermore, it compels a defendant to be a witness against himself, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, as providing the papers is equivalent to providing self-incriminating testimony. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are intimately related, mutually reinforcing the principle that a person has a right to be secure in their private effects and cannot be compelled to provide evidence that could lead to their own punishment.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Miller
Yes. The statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. The forfeiture proceeding is a criminal case within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and the statute's effect is to compel the claimants to be witnesses against themselves, as the penalty for non-production is a confession of guilt. However, the statute does not authorize an unreasonable search or seizure. The Fourth Amendment forbids physical intrusions and seizures; a mere court notice to produce documents, which the party is not required to part custody with and can refuse (albeit with a penalty), does not constitute a search or seizure in the constitutional sense.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are linked and create a protected 'zone of privacy' for personal papers. It broadened the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination to apply to quasi-criminal forfeiture proceedings, preventing the government from using civil labels to bypass constitutional protections. By treating the compulsory production of documents as a 'constructive' search and seizure, the Court set a powerful precedent against government overreach into private affairs. Although later cases have narrowed its 'mere evidence' rule, Boyd's core principle of protecting private papers from compelled disclosure remains a cornerstone of Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence.
Unlock the full brief for Boyd v. United States