Entick v Carrington ([1765] EWHC KB J98; (1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1029; 95 ER 807) is an English case decided on 2 November 1765 by the Court of Common Pleas under Lord Chief Justice Camden. King's messengers acting under a warrant from the Secretary of State had broken into the home of the writer John Entick and seized his papers while searching for the author of pamphlets critical of the Crown. Entick sued for trespass, and Camden CJ held that no statute or precedent authorized the warrant, so the officers had committed an unlawful trespass. The case is a foundation of English constitutional law for subjecting executive power to the ordinary law and directly influenced the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingHeld that the Secretary of State's warrant authorizing the search of Entick's home and seizure of his papers had no basis in statute or precedent, so the King's messengers who executed it were liable for trespass; by the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass, and the silence of the books on any excuse is an authority against the defendant. 2 Current StatusFoundational and undisturbed; its holding that executive officials may act only within powers granted by statute or precedent, never merely because no law forbids the act, remains a cornerstone of English constitutional law and directly shaped the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2 Case Status
Case Status (category) FAQs
Why did Entick v Carrington hold the Secretary of State's warrant unlawful?
No statute or precedent authorized the warrant, so the messengers committed trespass.
The Court of Common Pleas under Lord Chief Justice Camden held in 1765 that the warrant authorizing the search of John Entick's home and the seizure of his papers had no basis in statute or precedent, so the King's messengers who executed it were liable for trespass. Camden CJ reasoned that every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass, and that the silence of the books on any excuse is an authority against the defendant.
What is the lasting importance of Entick v Carrington?
Executive officials may act only within powers granted by law, and it influenced the Fourth Amendment.
The case is a foundation of English constitutional law for subjecting executive power to the ordinary law. Its holding that executive officials may act only within powers granted by statute or precedent remains a cornerstone of English constitutional law and directly influenced the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Connections
Associated With
Rule of Law, Doctrines Entick v Carrington is a foundational English rule-of-law case: it holds that executive officials may act only within powers granted by law.
Source Entick v Carrington (Wikipedia)
Authored By
Source Entick v Carrington (Wikipedia)
Decided By
Source Entick v Carrington (Wikipedia)
In Legal System
Source Entick v Carrington (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Source Wikidata: Entick v Carrington
Sources
1. Wikidata: Entick v Carrington
- Wikidata Q5380529, class allow-list match (w-wdresolver-0926)
- Leading English/UK constitutional case still influential today per source
View the Source2. Entick v Carrington (Wikipedia)
Judgment section
By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass...If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant.
- Legal significance section
- Infobox
- In Legal System: English Law
- In Category: Landmark Cases
- Associated With: Rule of Law
Entick v Carrington (Wikipedia)
- Authored By: Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, Infobox opinions field: Camden CJ
- Decided By: Court of King's Bench (England), Infobox court field: King's Bench
In Group: Liberty, Emergency Powers and Social Rights Cases, Introduction
is a leading case in English law and UK constitutional law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power.
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.