## Facts

- John Entick, suspected of involvement in seditious publications, lived in Stepney, Middlesex.
- A Secretary of State issued a warrant directing King’s messengers to search for Entick and seize him along with “all his books and papers” for examination.
- Nathan Carrington and other messengers entered Entick’s home, remained for several hours, broke open doors and containers, and searched multiple rooms.
- The messengers examined and seized substantial quantities of Entick’s private papers and books, allegedly causing significant damage.
- Entick sued the messengers in trespass for unlawful entry, search, and seizure, asserting the warrant did not legally justify their actions.
- Defendants pleaded not guilty and justified under the warrant, also claiming statutory protection for officers executing warrants.
- A special verdict found the material facts and set damages at £300 if liability existed, reserving the legal questions for the court.

## Issues

1. Whether a Secretary of State had common-law or statutory authority to issue a general warrant authorizing entry into a private home and seizure of papers on suspicion of seditious libel.
2. Whether long administrative practice of issuing similar warrants could make such warrants lawful.
3. Whether defendants were shielded from trespass liability by a statute protecting certain officers executing warrants issued by a justice of the peace.
4. Whether officers executing an invalid warrant remain personally liable as trespassers.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Entick and awarded £300 in damages as assessed in the special verdict.
- The court held the warrant illegal and void because no common-law or statutory authority empowered a Secretary of State to issue such a general search-and-seizure warrant.
- The court rejected the argument that repeated executive practice since the Revolution could legalize an otherwise unauthorized power.
- The court held the defendants were not protected by the cited statute because the Secretary of State was not a justice of the peace under the Act and the messengers were not within the officers the Act protected.
- Because the intrusion lacked lawful justification, the messengers were liable in trespass notwithstanding that they acted under color of a warrant.

## Legal Principles

- Executive officials may intrude upon private property only with clear legal authority; absent such authority, entry and search are trespasses.
- General warrants authorizing broad, unspecified searches and seizures—especially of papers—are unlawful.
- Governmental convenience, necessity, or long administrative usage cannot create or expand coercive powers not found in the common law or statutes.
- Officers who execute an unlawful warrant are personally accountable in ordinary tort actions unless a valid legal privilege or statutory immunity applies.
- Private papers receive strong protection because indiscriminate seizure and inspection of writings threatens liberty and confidentiality.

## Conclusion

The King’s Bench held that a Secretary of State lacked legal authority to issue a general warrant to enter a home and seize papers, and that officers executing such a warrant were liable in trespass, reaffirming that invasions of property require specific legal justification and that executive practice cannot substitute for law.


Entick v. Carrington, (1765) 19 State Tr. 1029 (K.B.)