Case record
Country
United Kingdom
Court
Court of Common Pleas
Year
1765
Areas of Law
Constitutional law, Civil liberties, Executive power
Citation
Entick v. Carrington, Court of Common Pleas (1765)
Entick v. Carrington ([1765] EWHC KB J98) is a landmark English constitutional law decision that established the Principle of Legality. Lord Camden ruled that executive officials cannot enter private property or seize personal belongings without explicit authority derived from statutory or common law.
John Entick was a printer and publisher suspected of writing seditious literature in a publication titled 'The Monitor.' Lord Halifax, Secretary of State, issued a general search warrant directing King's Messengers (led by Nathan Carrington) to break into Entick's home, search his private quarters, and seize his personal papers. Entick sued the messengers for unlawful trespass.
Legality of executive search warrants / Principle of legality
General Search Warrant signed by Secretary of State Lord Halifax, broken door locks, seized books and manuscripts, and messenger execution logs.
The King's Messengers argued that general warrants were long-standing executive practice necessary for state security and sedition prevention. Entick argued that no statute or common law authorized the Secretary of State to issue general warrants to search private homes.
Chief Justice Lord Camden ruled in favor of Entick, declaring the general search warrant completely illegal and awarding £300 in damages.
Lord Camden held: 'If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law.' The executive possesses no inherent authority to intrude upon private property unless explicit statutory power exists.
Outlawed executive general warrants, established constitutional protections for private property and papers, and laid the foundation for search warrant protections worldwide.
Outlawed executive general warrants, established constitutional protections for private property and papers, and laid the foundation for search warrant protections worldwide.
Beyond borders
UK · ** United States **
** How far can government go in searching private property? ###
The United Kingdom and the United States both have legal systems where government searches must be justified, but they approach it very differently. Entick v. Carrington (1765) established strong privacy protections in the UK, while the U.S. has the Fourth Amendment. ###
** U.S. has strong Fourth Amendment tradition. **Why preferable to others:** India, France, China, and Russia have different privacy traditions. **
The starting point was shared: how to protect citizens from arbitrary government searches. In the UK, the Court of Common Pleas had to decide whether general warrants were lawful. In the U.S., the Framers codified search protections in the Constitution. ###
| Topic | UK | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Issue | Are general warrants lawful? | What constitutes an unreasonable search? |
| Constitutional Basis | Common law privacy rights | Fourth Amendment |
| Leading Case | Entick v. Carrington (1765) | Mapp v. Ohio (1961) |
| Court's Reasoning | General warrants are unlawful | Unreasonable searches are prohibited |
| Outcome | Established strong privacy protections | Established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence |
Both systems recognize that citizens should be protected from arbitrary government searches, and both courts have issued landmark rulings to define these protections. In both countries, the judiciary has played a key role in advancing privacy rights. ###
The paths diverge in approach. In the UK, Entick established that general warrants are unlawful at common law, creating strong privacy protections without a written constitution. The UK approach is based on common law rights. In the U.S., by contrast, the Fourth Amendment codifies search protections, and courts have developed extensive jurisprudence. The U.S. approach is more constitutionalized and detailed. The result is a more common-law approach in the UK and a more constitutional one in the U.S. ###
Seen from today, the significance is that privacy is not just about rights—it is about legal culture. In the UK, the common-law approach provides flexibility. In the U.S., the constitutional approach provides stronger entrenchment. For citizens, both systems provide privacy protections. ###
Entick v. Carrington and U.S. Fourth Amendment cases both gave judges the power to define privacy, but they approached the problem differently. One is common-law; the other constitutional. Together, they show that privacy is not just about property—it is about liberty. ***
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll