Boyd v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1886 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentForfeitureSelf-IncriminationSearch and Seizureprivate paperscompulsory production

Facts

The government sought forfeiture of thirty-five cases of plate glass on the ground that the owners or agents had committed customs fraud under § 12 of the Act of June 22, 1874. To prove the quantity and value of glass in twenty-nine previously imported cases, the district attorney obtained a court order under § 5 of the same act requiring the claimants to produce the invoice for those twenty-nine cases. The claimants complied under protest, objecting that the order and statute were unconstitutional because they compelled production of evidence against them in a forfeiture suit. The invoice was admitted, the jury found for the United States, and the goods were condemned.

Issue

May the government, in a forfeiture proceeding under the revenue laws, compel a claimant to produce private papers for use as evidence against him through a court order issued under § 5 of the Act of June 22, 1874? More specifically, does such compelled production violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments even though the proceeding is civil in form?

Rule

A compulsory production of a person's private papers to establish a criminal charge or to forfeit his property is the equivalent of a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and in proceedings for penalties or forfeitures arising from offenses, though civil in form, such compelled production also violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against being compelled to be a witness against oneself. Proceedings to forfeit property for offenses committed by the owner are quasi-criminal and fall within the reason and spirit of those constitutional protections.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Miami, federal lawyers file an in rem action seeking forfeiture of Nadia Karim's shipment of specialty fabric, alleging she used false customs declarations to avoid duties. Relying on a statute that applies to noncriminal revenue proceedings, the court orders Nadia to bring her private purchase journal to court, and the government intends to use it to prove the alleged fraud.

Under the majority's doctrine, is the order constitutionally permissible?

Explanation. The majority held that compulsory production of a person's private papers to establish a criminal charge or to forfeit property is the equivalent of an unreasonable search and seizure, and when the forfeiture is a penalty for an offense, the proceeding is quasi-criminal. Civil form does not control. Because the government seeks to use Nadia's private papers to prove revenue fraud and obtain forfeiture, the order is unconstitutional.