John Entick, suspected of authoring seditious papers, had his home searched and papers seized by King's messengers acting under a general warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The Court held such warrants illegal, establishing that executive power cannot authorise entry to private property without specific legal authority.
Facts
John Entick was suspected of being the author of seditious papers titled ‘The Monitor, or British Freeholder’. The Earl of Halifax, Secretary of State, issued a general warrant directing four King’s messengers (Nathan Carrington and three others) to search for Entick, seize him along with all his books and papers, and bring them before the Secretary of State for examination.
On 11 November 1762, the defendants entered Entick’s dwelling house, remained for four hours, broke open doors, boxes, chests and drawers, searched rooms, read and examined his private papers, and seized books and papers. Entick brought an action in trespass against the messengers.
Issues
Primary Issues
- Whether the defendants were protected by the statute 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, which provided procedural protections for constables and officers acting under a justice’s warrant
- Whether a Secretary of State had lawful power to issue general warrants authorising the search for and seizure of a person and all their books and papers on suspicion of seditious libel
- Whether the practice of issuing such warrants since the Revolution could render them lawful
Judgment
The Court unanimously found for the plaintiff and awarded damages of £300.
On the Statute 24 Geo. 2
The Court held that neither the Secretary of State nor the King’s messengers fell within the protection of the statute. The Secretary of State was not a justice of the peace within the meaning of the Act, and the messengers were not constables or officers recognised by the statute.
On the Legality of General Warrants
The Court held the warrant to be wholly illegal and void. The judgment emphasised the fundamental importance of property rights:
“our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbour’s ground, he must justify it by law.”
The Court further stated:
“This case was compared to that of stolen goods… but in that case the justice and the informer must proceed with great caution; there must be an oath that the party has had his goods stolen, and his strong reason to believe they are concealed in such a place; but if the goods are not found there, he is a trespasser”
On the Usage Since the Revolution
The Court rejected the argument that long usage could justify illegal warrants:
“if it began then, it is too modern to be law; the common law did not begin with the Revolution; the ancient constitution which had been almost overthrown and destroyed, was then repaired and revived”
“It must have been the guilt or poverty of those upon whom such warrants have been executed, that deterred or hindered them from contending against the power of a Secretary of State”
Implications
This case established several fundamental constitutional principles:
- Executive officials cannot exercise powers not authorised by law, regardless of claims of state necessity
- General warrants authorising the seizure of all papers without specification are unlawful
- The sanctity of private property and papers is protected against arbitrary government intrusion
- Long executive practice cannot create legal authority where none exists in law
- The courts will protect individual liberty against unlawful executive action
The case remains a cornerstone of constitutional law, establishing limits on government power to search and seize private property. It influenced the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and continues to be cited in cases concerning the limits of state power and the protection of civil liberties.
Verdict: Judgment for the plaintiff. The warrant was declared wholly illegal and void, and the defendants were found liable for trespass with damages assessed at £300.
Source: Entick v Carrington & Ors [1765] EWHC KB J98
Cite this work:
To cite this resource, please use the following reference:
National Case Law Archive, 'Entick v Carrington & Ors [1765] EWHC KB J98' (LawCases.net, December 2025) <https://www.lawcases.net/cases/entick-v-carrington-ors-1765-ewhc-kb-j98/> accessed 19 April 2026
