WEBVTT

NOTE A Constitutional Mystery: Did the Founding Fathers Intend to Bar Admission of Illegally Seized Evidence?

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000
Yeah, great stuff on the Fourth Amendment today.

2
00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:08.800
This is also a topic that I do a lot of research on.

3
00:00:08.800 --> 00:00:14.400
I'm Roger Roots. I teach at the New York Institute of Technology in Long Island, New York.

4
00:00:14.400 --> 00:00:20.600
And I'm doing research specifically on the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule.

5
00:00:20.600 --> 00:00:25.900
And I call it a constitutional mystery because

6
00:00:25.900 --> 00:00:33.900
The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule is not specifically mentioned in the Fourth Amendment, it was created by judges.

7
00:00:33.900 --> 00:00:39.900
Of course, the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule is the rule of evidence that requires illegally seized evidence

8
00:00:39.900 --> 00:00:44.900
to be excluded from the jury or the fact-finder in a criminal trial.

9
00:00:44.900 --> 00:00:49.900
It's been controversial for over a hundred years.

10
00:00:49.900 --> 00:00:54.900
And as I said, it does not appear in the text of the actual Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

11
00:00:54.900 --> 00:01:08.900
The Fourth Amendment just says, the right of the people to be secure in their person's houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue without probable cause, specifically stating, and it has to be under oath.

12
00:01:08.900 --> 00:01:13.900
Keep in mind that arrest is also a seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment.

13
00:01:13.900 --> 00:01:20.900
So if you are subject to a false arrest, that is a Fourth Amendment violation.

14
00:01:20.900 --> 00:01:38.900
Now, it's controversial because not only is it not explicitly stated in the text, but we really don't have any statements of any of the drafters of the Fourth Amendment regarding exclusion of evidence or the concept of exclusion evidence.

15
00:01:38.900 --> 00:02:08.900
And by the way, I'm still looking, this is a topic of my own research, I'm constantly looking for letters, anything I can find that might suggest that, you know, John Adams or James Madison or any of the framers of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights thought about it at all, I've yet to find any statement by any of them that suggests they, that I should say that specifically states that they were talking and discussing it.

16
00:02:08.900 --> 00:02:38.900
4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule is also controversial because occasionally it allows guilty offenders to go free and when that happens you know there's often it makes the crime headlines there's at least one case of a quadruple murderer who committed four murders in New York was convicted in lower court and had his conviction overturned on exclusionary rule grounds he was released

17
00:02:38.900 --> 00:02:43.380
Later on and committed a fifth murder. Okay, that's true. We have to just it's true

18
00:02:43.380 --> 00:02:51.540
There are costs associated with the exclusionary rule at least one quadruple murderer has gone free because of the exclusionary rule and went on

19
00:02:51.540 --> 00:02:53.540
to commit a fifth murder

20
00:02:53.540 --> 00:02:55.540
Okay

21
00:02:56.500 --> 00:02:58.500
There are numerous scholars

22
00:02:58.540 --> 00:03:05.020
Who claim that the Fourth Amendment was never intended that the there was never an intention in the Fourth Amendment?

23
00:03:05.300 --> 00:03:08.460
to exclude illegally seized evidence from criminal trial

24
00:03:08.900 --> 00:03:35.300
Often, they claim that the Founding Fathers intended for the remedy to be merely a right to sue in civil court, a separate action, so that if you were a victim of an illegal search or seizure, only if you were innocent, the idea is, well, then you could sue in civil court the police officers or the constables or whoever it was who violated your Fourth Amendment rights.

25
00:03:35.300 --> 00:03:40.300
That is at least the argument made by the anti-exclusionist crowd.

26
00:03:40.300 --> 00:03:50.300
Here you see one scholar, Pitler, he claims that the founders and the common law recognized a strict non-exclusionary rule

27
00:03:50.300 --> 00:03:55.300
and he claims that such a rule prevailed in the 19th century driven by, quote,

28
00:03:55.300 --> 00:04:02.300
the common law court's paramount concern with truth-seeking and punishing the guilty, unquote.

29
00:04:02.300 --> 00:04:32.300
Now I've done an awful lottalk of research that suggests that is very inaccurate. It's just not accurate. Of course, punishing the guilty might be of value to some extent. Truth-seeking is a value of the courts, but it certainly is not the paramount value of the courts. Here are just some of the scholars who hate the exclusionary rule and for many years they've been publishing book after

30
00:04:32.300 --> 00:04:37.300
Article after Article, Attacking the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule

31
00:04:37.300 --> 00:04:41.300
And by the way, some of these men I have a great amount of respect for

32
00:04:41.300 --> 00:04:44.300
Including Professor Davies at Tennessee Law School

33
00:04:44.300 --> 00:04:49.300
Probably one of the foremost authorities on the origins of the exclusionary rule

34
00:04:49.300 --> 00:04:55.300
Along with this gentleman, Mr. Kudahy, who Mr. Guillory discussed

35
00:04:55.300 --> 00:05:05.300
But probably Kudahy and Davies are the foremost scholars in the world on the origins of the Fourth Amendment, exclusionary rule, or the Fourth Amendment.

36
00:05:05.300 --> 00:05:16.300
Akhil Amar, who's often at Federalist Society conferences, has been attacking the exclusionary rule for years, probably ten Law Review articles, three books.

37
00:05:16.300 --> 00:05:23.300
The original was Wigmore, of course, dean of the Northwestern Law School, hated and despised the exclusionary rule

38
00:05:23.300 --> 00:05:28.260
Exclusionary Rule, and claimed, I'll show falsely claimed, that it was never even thought

39
00:05:28.260 --> 00:05:32.320
about in the early republic.

40
00:05:32.320 --> 00:05:37.980
And of course, there are judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, several of them, who have sought

41
00:05:37.980 --> 00:05:44.600
to abolish forever the exclusionary rule in recent years.

42
00:05:44.600 --> 00:05:47.240
This is the current Supreme Court.

43
00:05:47.240 --> 00:05:52.100
There was a case that came out last year called Herring v. United States, and another case

44
00:05:52.100 --> 00:05:59.020
from I believe 2006 called Hudson v Michigan, in which the exclusionary rule was almost

45
00:05:59.020 --> 00:06:00.820
abolished.

46
00:06:00.820 --> 00:06:04.860
There are at least four members of the current U.S. Supreme Court who seek to abolish the

47
00:06:04.860 --> 00:06:08.500
exclusionary rule.

48
00:06:08.500 --> 00:06:14.020
And those would be the conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Scalia certainly,

49
00:06:14.020 --> 00:06:20.120
Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice Roberts, and Alito.

50
00:06:20.120 --> 00:06:28.120
They have not been able to convince Kennedy to come over to their side and to repeal or abolish the exclusionary rule.

51
00:06:28.120 --> 00:06:34.120
However, the exclusionary rule, it has to be said, is now teetering on the brink. It could go at any time.

52
00:06:34.120 --> 00:06:42.120
I think it's relatively safe at the moment because, well, Sotomayor, the so-called liberal, will say she's on the court now.

53
00:06:42.120 --> 00:06:45.120
I mean, it's safe for the moment.

54
00:06:45.120 --> 00:07:01.120
By the way, I want to go back because I just want to say that there are Austrian school scholars who attack the exclusionary rule and I noticed that my friend here, Gil Guillory, in his paper, also cusses the exclusionary rule.

55
00:07:01.120 --> 00:07:07.120
Dr. Block has published a Law Review article attacking the exclusionary rule.

56
00:07:07.120 --> 00:07:14.120
As long as we have no searches, why not?

57
00:07:37.120 --> 00:07:45.120
is the argument that we have to value the truth, and that juries have a right to know the truth, okay?

58
00:07:45.120 --> 00:07:54.120
And also there's an argument that the victims of crime have a right to have all known evidence used in court, okay?

59
00:07:54.120 --> 00:08:03.120
But I submit that a better libertarian argument is my argument, an argument in favor of the exclusionary rule

60
00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:15.560
and probably aligned with what you might call the liberal democrats of modern American political philosophy and that is it's based on a property right.

61
00:08:15.560 --> 00:08:25.560
If the state seizes without due process or without warrant where warrants are needed, property belonging to another person,

62
00:08:25.560 --> 00:08:30.260
Well, they have no right to use that property for any reason, just because they state that

63
00:08:30.260 --> 00:08:37.000
they have evidentiary value in the property, doesn't give the state any right to use property

64
00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:41.560
that it stole without warrant, without process or whatever.

65
00:08:41.560 --> 00:08:46.800
In fact, the true owner is the victim of the search and seizure, doesn't matter if he is

66
00:08:46.800 --> 00:08:53.540
a vile, despicable, evil murderer, nonetheless, he's the true owner of the property, and upon

67
00:08:53.540 --> 00:09:05.660
I submit that the exclusionary rule is entirely consistent with libertarian principles and

68
00:09:05.660 --> 00:09:12.140
entirely consistent with Austrian school principles.

69
00:09:12.140 --> 00:09:16.580
Where did the exclusionary rule come from?

70
00:09:16.580 --> 00:09:22.740
Most people would say that it came from the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boyd v.

71
00:09:22.740 --> 00:09:30.140
as United States, which was actually a civil case involved in tax records and a suspicion

72
00:09:30.140 --> 00:09:36.380
that a particular business was engaging in tax crimes.

73
00:09:36.380 --> 00:09:41.820
And there was a demand to produce certain business records.

74
00:09:41.820 --> 00:09:47.260
The U.S. Supreme Court, those of you who are in the back, maybe you can't quite see the

75
00:09:47.260 --> 00:09:51.500
bottom of that slide there, but they looked not only at the Fourth Amendment, but they

76
00:09:51.500 --> 00:10:01.500
The Fourth Amendment has no explicitly stated exclusionary rule in its text.

77
00:10:01.500 --> 00:10:08.500
The Fifth Amendment does have an explicitly stated exclusionary rule.

78
00:10:08.500 --> 00:10:15.500
Nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

79
00:10:15.500 --> 00:10:40.500
The Supreme Court looked at the Fifth Amendment and said that even though the Fourth Amendment doesn't describe exclusion of evidence, the Fifth Amendment does, and Judge Bradley said that in this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments almost run into each other.

80
00:10:40.500 --> 00:10:45.380
So they sort of forged the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment out of a sort of a

81
00:10:45.380 --> 00:10:50.980
fusion of the Fourth with the principles of the Fifth Amendment, okay, to create the Fourth

82
00:10:50.980 --> 00:10:52.540
Amendment exclusionary rule.

83
00:10:52.540 --> 00:11:00.780
Again, it's been controversial for more than a hundred years.

84
00:11:00.780 --> 00:11:05.480
This is also from the Supreme Court opinion in Boyd v. United States.

85
00:11:05.480 --> 00:11:06.920
This is Justice Bradley.

86
00:11:06.920 --> 00:11:11.460
And we doubt that when the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were penned and adopted, the language

87
00:11:11.460 --> 00:11:16.300
of Lord Camden was relied on as expressing the true doctrine on the subject of searches

88
00:11:16.300 --> 00:11:22.880
and seizures, and as furnishing the true criteria of the reasonable and unreasonable character

89
00:11:22.880 --> 00:11:24.480
of such seizures.

90
00:11:24.480 --> 00:11:25.480
Okay.

91
00:11:25.480 --> 00:11:30.200
Now, who was Lord Camden?

92
00:11:30.200 --> 00:11:34.440
Lord Camden was an English judge, he was the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Please

93
00:11:34.440 --> 00:11:42.280
in London during the 1760s and many cities in the United States are currently named Camden.

94
00:11:42.280 --> 00:11:50.200
Camden, New Jersey is named after Lord Camden. I believe there's a Camden County Alabama as well.

95
00:11:50.760 --> 00:11:55.480
Maybe someone knows something about that. But there are many places named for Lord Camden

96
00:11:55.480 --> 00:12:00.600
in the current United States. It shows you that the U.S. founding generation revered Lord Camden.

97
00:12:00.600 --> 00:12:03.240
He was a libertarian judge in many respects.

98
00:12:03.240 --> 00:12:09.480
Many of his rulings were very in favor of individual liberty.

99
00:12:09.480 --> 00:12:17.520
Camden Yards, where the Baltimore Orioles play baseball, was named for Lord Camden.

100
00:12:17.520 --> 00:12:24.760
Lord Camden in the year 1765 had authored a very famous case in Anglo-American history

101
00:12:24.760 --> 00:12:28.120
entitled Entick v. Carrington.

102
00:12:28.120 --> 00:12:35.080
Again, this is 1765, this is in England, and he had also made the connection between search and

103
00:12:35.080 --> 00:12:40.760
seizure principles and silence rights, okay, which again, a hundred years later in the U.S.,

104
00:12:40.760 --> 00:12:44.520
those two principles would come together to form the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule.

105
00:12:45.480 --> 00:12:51.640
This is from the 1765 case, Antique v. Carrington, quote, Lord Camden,

106
00:12:51.640 --> 00:12:57.240
it is very certain that the law obligeth no man to accuse himself, and it should seem that search for

107
00:12:57.240 --> 00:13:01.680
Your evidence is disallowed upon the same principle.

108
00:13:01.680 --> 00:13:09.200
So Lord Camden made the connection 250 years ago between silence rights and search and

109
00:13:09.200 --> 00:13:10.700
seizure rights.

110
00:13:10.700 --> 00:13:17.660
So my argument is that the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule actually has an ancient

111
00:13:17.660 --> 00:13:18.660
pedigree.

112
00:13:18.660 --> 00:13:20.560
It's not a startlingly new invention.

113
00:13:20.560 --> 00:13:22.880
It wasn't invented in 1886.

114
00:13:22.880 --> 00:13:47.880
Of course the 1886 decision boy to the United States referenced the Entick case and so all of these quote-unquote conservative scholars who claim otherwise really are, they really have to hide from the fact that this is an ancient principle that has been sort of divine from the distant past to our present legal situation.

115
00:13:47.880 --> 00:13:56.880
And by the way, I recently wrote a law review article, and by the way, anyone who's interested

116
00:13:56.880 --> 00:13:59.240
can come up and grab one of these.

117
00:13:59.240 --> 00:14:11.840
I only brought about 25 of them, but, okay, yeah.

118
00:14:11.840 --> 00:14:15.920
I recently wrote an article called The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary

119
00:14:15.920 --> 00:14:23.800
Rule, and I went into a number of legal doctrines that go way back in history that support the

120
00:14:23.800 --> 00:14:27.200
idea of excluding illegally seized evidence from court.

121
00:14:27.200 --> 00:14:34.160
And by the way, at one time there was a doctrine, well, it was pre-trial habeas corpus.

122
00:14:34.160 --> 00:14:40.000
Of course, habeas corpus is a sort of a mechanism in the law, most of us are familiar with the

123
00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:41.000
term.

124
00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:45.520
It's a term we use today to describe post-conviction remedies.

125
00:14:45.520 --> 00:14:52.320
In other words, after conviction, you know, a habeas corpus petition can be submitted

126
00:14:52.320 --> 00:14:57.560
and the court sometimes will spring someone, but in modern American law, it almost always

127
00:14:57.560 --> 00:15:01.200
applies after conviction.

128
00:15:01.200 --> 00:15:09.060
I document cases in this article where people at one time in American history were able

129
00:15:09.060 --> 00:15:16.780
to be sprung from jail pre-trial, pre-trial habeas corpus, submitting that they were arrested

130
00:15:16.780 --> 00:15:22.220
without warrant, for example, in circumstances where they needed to have a warrant.

131
00:15:22.220 --> 00:15:26.340
Early American courts would occasionally look at such cases and absolutely just spring them

132
00:15:26.340 --> 00:15:32.340
right there and issue a writ of habeas corpus, and they would be sprung from incarceration

133
00:15:32.340 --> 00:15:33.340
pre-trial.

134
00:15:33.340 --> 00:15:35.260
Of course, that's all gone.

135
00:15:35.260 --> 00:15:36.540
We've lost habeas corpus.

136
00:15:36.540 --> 00:15:46.540
Today it's such a narrow little writ, it almost never applies, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes it, of course, all the state courts recognize it.

137
00:15:46.540 --> 00:15:53.020
But it's really been narrowed into a very small corner.

138
00:15:53.020 --> 00:16:05.300
By the way, I also document in this article that there were always privileges from arrest, and there still are, you know, the U.S. Constitution has a speech and debate clause.

139
00:16:05.300 --> 00:16:09.300
No member of Congress can be arrested on the way to Congress.

140
00:16:09.300 --> 00:16:10.940
Did you guys know that?

141
00:16:10.940 --> 00:16:13.540
There's a speech and debate privilege of a congressman.

142
00:16:13.540 --> 00:16:18.340
You cannot arrest him even for murder on the way to Congress to give a speech.

143
00:16:18.340 --> 00:16:20.460
You cannot arrest him in Congress.

144
00:16:20.460 --> 00:16:23.660
There's a privilege from arrest.

145
00:16:23.660 --> 00:16:32.380
But at one time in American history, there was a privilege from arrest for in some jurisdictions on the way to church, for example.

146
00:16:32.380 --> 00:16:37.100
In some jurisdictions, there was a privilege from arrest on the way to election polls,

147
00:16:37.100 --> 00:16:43.100
not just for politicians, but for voters, so that even if you were arrested for a vile,

148
00:16:43.100 --> 00:16:48.940
heinous crime, rape, whatever, rape, arson, murder, whatever, all you had to show,

149
00:16:49.500 --> 00:16:54.540
it's your first appearance in court, was that you had a privilege from arrest and you would

150
00:16:54.540 --> 00:17:00.300
be sprung right there. That was, you know, rather, you know, it's startling from today's

151
00:17:00.300 --> 00:17:04.780
Legal Perspective.

152
00:17:04.780 --> 00:17:12.580
Also the exclusionary rule is also based on certain, what would you call them, witness,

153
00:17:12.580 --> 00:17:18.860
certain evidentiary, well you might call them privileges, the attorney-client privilege,

154
00:17:18.860 --> 00:17:24.160
we still have the attorney-client privilege, but at one time there were many more privileges.

155
00:17:24.160 --> 00:17:27.200
Some of you know that there is a spousal privilege.

156
00:17:27.200 --> 00:17:33.720
The State cannot force your wife to take the stand and testify against you, in most jurisdictions, even today.

157
00:17:33.720 --> 00:17:38.720
There were more privileges like that in the past.

158
00:17:38.720 --> 00:17:46.320
And I go on about how the exclusionary rule, you know, is largely based on many doctrines.

159
00:17:46.320 --> 00:17:48.080
And those kinds of ideas go way back.

160
00:17:48.080 --> 00:17:54.580
I just want to go back to this quote from this scholar, Mr. Pitler.

161
00:17:54.580 --> 00:17:55.580
Just read this.

162
00:17:55.580 --> 00:18:17.580
He claims that the 19th century common law courts had a paramount concern with truth-seeking and punishing the guilty and that there was a strict non-exclusionary rule and the idea is they allowed all evidence in.

163
00:18:17.580 --> 00:18:22.580
It's just not true. It's an absolute, it's a legal myth. It's not accurate at all.

164
00:18:22.580 --> 00:18:30.580
The courts of the past had far more, many more exclusionary rules, all kinds of different exclusionary rules.

165
00:18:30.580 --> 00:18:35.580
Listen, the rule against hearsay evidence is as old as Sir Walter Raleigh.

166
00:18:35.580 --> 00:18:40.580
Okay, we are losing search and seizure freedoms.

167
00:18:40.580 --> 00:18:46.580
We're not gaining them over time. I certainly agree with Mr. Guillory on this.

168
00:18:52.580 --> 00:19:01.580
Okay, now I want to get to some of the more specific research I've been doing just in the past year.

169
00:19:01.580 --> 00:19:11.580
And it relates to claims by some scholars that the Founding Fathers weren't even familiar with the Entig v. Carrington case.

170
00:19:11.580 --> 00:19:16.580
For a long time it's been suggested that they probably read the Entig v. Carrington case.

171
00:19:16.580 --> 00:19:33.660
Professor Davies highly regarded authority on the origins of the Fourth Amendment has

172
00:19:33.660 --> 00:19:37.900
had several footnotes in some of his articles suggesting that the founding fathers may not

173
00:19:37.900 --> 00:19:46.200
A lot of even been familiar with the Antigue v. Carrington paragraph and that the books

174
00:19:46.200 --> 00:19:52.660
containing that case which were first published in any way that could have gotten to the American

175
00:19:52.660 --> 00:20:01.200
colonies in the year 1781 and Professor Davies has suggested that there weren't many copies

176
00:20:01.200 --> 00:20:05.440
of those books circulating in the American colonies at that time.

177
00:20:05.440 --> 00:20:12.440
So what I'm doing, I'm actually going around to rare book libraries, especially on the

178
00:20:12.440 --> 00:20:19.600
eastern, east coast of the United States. And I'm seeking to visit every single known

179
00:20:19.600 --> 00:20:26.060
surviving copy of the original N. Tick V. Carrington decision, which is contained in

180
00:20:26.060 --> 00:20:30.100
a set of books called Complete Collection of State Trials. Let me just find a picture

181
00:20:30.100 --> 00:20:50.100
The complete collection of state trials. As far as I know, I've identified about 120 to 130 surviving copies that survive in rare book libraries in the United States of this set of books published in 1781, which contains the Entic v. Carrington decision.

182
00:20:50.100 --> 00:21:20.100
Okay, so in the past year I've been sort of traveling around all these old libraries and this is what these books look like, they're very large, about 18 inches in height, there are several institutions that have two or more sets, Harvard has three sets, Yale has three sets, but what I'm specifically looking for is provenance, the provenance of these books, which means the chain of custody or the prior ownership, so to speak, and it's funny, I'm actually, when I go and I look

183
00:21:20.100 --> 00:21:26.780
of these books. I'm trying to identify any markings in quill, quill pen, any identifying,

184
00:21:26.780 --> 00:21:31.260
you know, many people of that era used to write their names, you know, like we do today

185
00:21:31.260 --> 00:21:36.260
from the library of such and such. But they would write their names. Books were more expensive

186
00:21:36.260 --> 00:21:43.620
then than they are now. And so, you know, I'm looking for any evidence that the owner

187
00:21:43.620 --> 00:21:49.300
in 1781 would identify himself by making any marks and specifically whether they made any

188
00:21:49.300 --> 00:21:55.620
Marks, next to the Intick v. Carrington decision, which is in Volume 11 of that set, and even

189
00:21:55.620 --> 00:22:01.620
more specifically, next to, for example, any underlining or something, the paragraphs that

190
00:22:01.620 --> 00:22:05.100
discuss excluding evidence.

191
00:22:05.100 --> 00:22:09.380
Okay, so it's very labor-intensive research.

192
00:22:09.380 --> 00:22:12.300
It's sort of hit and miss, mostly miss.

193
00:22:12.300 --> 00:22:16.940
It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

194
00:22:16.940 --> 00:22:20.940
Most of the Ivy League institutions, Cornell has several sets of these.

195
00:22:20.940 --> 00:22:26.940
By the way, what's really interesting is that I said that some of these are at rare book libraries.

196
00:22:26.940 --> 00:22:29.940
There are some of these that are on the stacks at libraries.

197
00:22:29.940 --> 00:22:32.940
Just the other day, I was at the University of Georgia.

198
00:22:32.940 --> 00:22:37.940
When I flew down here, I flew into Atlanta and took a drive up to the University of Georgia Law Library.

199
00:22:37.940 --> 00:22:41.940
On the stacks, which means that the students can actually go and check them out.

200
00:22:41.940 --> 00:22:44.940
So these are just barely rare books.

201
00:22:44.940 --> 00:22:50.460
My argument is that, remember there are 130 that we know that still exist today and I

202
00:22:50.460 --> 00:22:53.660
argue there almost certainly are more and by the way at the University of Georgia I

203
00:22:53.660 --> 00:22:59.340
found that they were two sets masquerading as one set.

204
00:22:59.340 --> 00:23:05.280
They had been bound or rebound after the fact and they had been bound together and I found

205
00:23:05.280 --> 00:23:08.980
little things like that.

206
00:23:08.980 --> 00:23:14.260
But one question is, well, did any quote unquote founding fathers, people who were involved

207
00:23:14.260 --> 00:23:17.300
in the Drafting of the Fourth Amendment.

208
00:23:17.300 --> 00:23:19.260
Did they have access to these books?

209
00:23:19.260 --> 00:23:21.220
Did they own any of these books?

210
00:23:21.220 --> 00:23:25.580
And I identified several hits, you might say.

211
00:23:25.580 --> 00:23:32.860
At Yale Law Library, there is a set that was owned by, I believe, by Matthew Griswold,

212
00:23:32.860 --> 00:23:35.460
who was an early governor of Connecticut.

213
00:23:35.460 --> 00:23:43.460
And he actually was the president of the State of Connecticut Ratifying Convention that ratified

214
00:23:43.460 --> 00:23:45.060
by the U.S. Constitution.

215
00:23:45.060 --> 00:23:46.780
So that's a hit, you could say.

216
00:23:46.780 --> 00:23:49.740
I've identified at least one founding father

217
00:23:49.740 --> 00:23:52.580
who owned a copy of the complete collection

218
00:23:52.580 --> 00:23:56.980
of state trials, fourth edition, way over here.

219
00:23:56.980 --> 00:23:59.700
Where's this little red light thing?

220
00:23:59.700 --> 00:24:02.700
Way over there you can see Matthew Griswold,

221
00:24:02.700 --> 00:24:06.180
the president, his signature, on the document

222
00:24:06.180 --> 00:24:07.780
that approved the U.S. Constitution

223
00:24:07.780 --> 00:24:10.780
at the Connecticut State Ratifying Convention.

224
00:24:10.780 --> 00:24:17.120
Okay, Chancellor James Kent, a friend of Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton, you could say he was a

225
00:24:17.120 --> 00:24:18.120
founding father.

226
00:24:18.120 --> 00:24:25.400
He certainly was one of the leaders behind the push, the Federalists really, the enemy,

227
00:24:25.400 --> 00:24:26.780
you know, we might say.

228
00:24:26.780 --> 00:24:32.060
But nonetheless, he was involved in the constitutional ratification process.

229
00:24:32.060 --> 00:24:37.700
He certainly was promoting the U.S. Constitution at the New York State ratifying convention

230
00:24:37.700 --> 00:24:40.340
in Poughkeepsie, New York.

231
00:24:40.340 --> 00:24:46.740
By the way, he went on to be a very famous constitutional scholar in the early 1800s.

232
00:24:46.740 --> 00:24:48.060
But he had a set.

233
00:24:48.060 --> 00:24:55.500
He owned a set that is now currently at the Columbia Law Library in New York City.

234
00:24:55.500 --> 00:24:58.140
I should say there are other pamphlets I've identified.

235
00:24:58.140 --> 00:25:02.580
Not just that one intake B Carrington case, but there are other pamphlets and sources,

236
00:25:02.580 --> 00:25:03.580
especially from England.

237
00:25:03.580 --> 00:25:10.320
I've not found any American published documents that suggest the relationship between silent

238
00:25:10.320 --> 00:25:40.320
and Search and Seizure rights. However, there are other English pamphlets. There's a pamphlet that I call the Father of Kandor pamphlet written by a pseudonym, Father of Kandor, no one knows who he was, but he wrote this pamphlet called A Letter Concerning Libels, Warrants, Searches and Seizures of Papers, etc. The title takes up the entire first page of these pamphlets. But there are over a hundred and maybe twenty of these currently in rare book libraries in the United States.

239
00:25:40.320 --> 00:26:10.320
The laws of England are to tender to every man accused that they do not oblige him to answer a question that will tend to accuse himself, and then this important statement, how then can it be supposed that investigators may seize and carry off all his papers, and then at his trial produce these papers in evidence against himself? This would be made clear by the law of England.

240
00:26:10.320 --> 00:26:15.840
Taking a Man, Give Evidence Against and Accused Himself with a Vengeance."

241
00:26:15.840 --> 00:26:20.720
Okay, that's the exclusionary rule, or what became the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule

242
00:26:20.720 --> 00:26:22.480
twenty years later, okay?

243
00:26:22.480 --> 00:26:24.200
And it's in that pamphlet.

244
00:26:24.200 --> 00:26:27.640
And there are, like I said, over a hundred of those in rare book libraries currently

245
00:26:27.640 --> 00:26:30.360
in the United States.

246
00:26:30.360 --> 00:26:33.820
Sometimes they are bound like you see here, or rebound.

247
00:26:33.820 --> 00:26:39.000
Often they are bound together with other pamphlets.

248
00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:43.800
And what's really interesting is that, you know, let's just face it, it's highly likely

249
00:26:43.800 --> 00:26:48.160
that there are larger numbers of these pamphlets who were lost to history, okay, much more

250
00:26:48.160 --> 00:26:50.100
than sets of law books.

251
00:26:50.100 --> 00:26:55.360
So we don't, if there are 130 that currently survive, let's just assume there were probably

252
00:26:55.360 --> 00:27:01.740
many more in circulation in the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s.

253
00:27:01.740 --> 00:27:07.840
But one of these copies of the Father of Kandor pamphlet, which is currently at the New York

254
00:27:07.840 --> 00:27:15.920
Public Library, of all places, was owned by Robert R. Livingston, who was a member of

255
00:27:15.920 --> 00:27:21.680
the Continental Congress and a member of the Five-Man Committee that drafted the Declaration

256
00:27:21.680 --> 00:27:28.200
of Independence in 1776, along with, of course, Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Roger

257
00:27:28.200 --> 00:27:31.240
Sherman of Connecticut, and he's actually on currency.

258
00:27:31.240 --> 00:27:35.440
You know, there's the old joke, how can you identify who is and who is not a founding

259
00:27:35.440 --> 00:27:36.440
father?

260
00:27:36.440 --> 00:27:39.240
If he's on currency, he was a founding father.

261
00:27:39.240 --> 00:27:42.240
I forget which bill it is, but this picture is on currency.

262
00:27:42.240 --> 00:27:45.520
Is it the $5 or the $50, the $20?

263
00:27:45.520 --> 00:27:48.720
On the back, this picture is on currency.

264
00:27:48.720 --> 00:27:49.560
Yeah.

265
00:27:51.640 --> 00:27:53.120
It might be the $2 bill.

266
00:27:53.120 --> 00:27:54.320
Yeah, it might be the $2.

267
00:27:54.320 --> 00:27:56.240
Anyways, Robert Livingston is on currency.

268
00:27:56.240 --> 00:27:58.200
He's the guy with the head behind,

269
00:27:58.200 --> 00:28:01.000
between Jefferson and sort of Adams there.

270
00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:02.800
Okay, in the back, hiding in the back.

271
00:28:02.800 --> 00:28:05.480
But he owned a copy of this father of candor pamphlet.

272
00:28:06.440 --> 00:28:15.440
Now here's a bona fide founding father and a framer, to the extent we can all quibble over what that means.

273
00:28:15.440 --> 00:28:19.440
But Rufus King was an actual framer of the Constitution.

274
00:28:19.440 --> 00:28:24.440
He was a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution,

275
00:28:24.440 --> 00:28:31.440
and importantly he was on the drafting committee that made all those evil and vile changes.

276
00:28:31.440 --> 00:28:37.320
Remember, he was a member of that group that was trying to seek greater power, a Federalist.

277
00:28:37.320 --> 00:28:41.000
He was on that committee that was changing the apostrophes and the commas, trying to

278
00:28:41.000 --> 00:28:42.720
give more power to government.

279
00:28:42.720 --> 00:28:47.640
Okay, but nonetheless, he owned several copies of the Father of Candor pamphlets, which are

280
00:28:47.640 --> 00:28:51.240
currently held by the New York Historical Society.

281
00:28:51.240 --> 00:28:57.960
Okay, so that's a true, and by the way, he also was on the original U.S. Senate that

282
00:28:57.960 --> 00:29:00.080
voted for the Bill of Rights.

283
00:29:00.080 --> 00:29:04.680
The process was very long. It was a long, drawn-out process.

284
00:29:04.680 --> 00:29:08.480
So there were some people involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

285
00:29:08.480 --> 00:29:13.240
And the Bill of Rights came in 1791.

286
00:29:13.240 --> 00:29:15.720
He was actually at all levels.

287
00:29:15.720 --> 00:29:19.320
He was at the drafting level of the original Constitution.

288
00:29:19.320 --> 00:29:24.880
Then he actually was a delegate to the Massachusetts State Ratifying Convention

289
00:29:24.880 --> 00:29:28.480
and later a U.S. Senator who approved the Bill of Rights.

290
00:29:28.480 --> 00:29:36.040
So there's an actual person who owned a pamphlet discussing the exclusionary rule, and he was a true framer.

291
00:29:36.040 --> 00:29:40.560
Okay, now, interesting, George Washington.

292
00:29:40.560 --> 00:29:45.120
Okay, you know, there's a website called librarything.com.

293
00:29:45.120 --> 00:29:46.280
Some of you might have heard of it.

294
00:29:46.280 --> 00:29:50.680
It's a little bit like Facebook for book lovers, Library Thing.

295
00:29:50.680 --> 00:29:56.640
And you can go on Library Thing and list all the books you own and then find out who owns the same books.

296
00:29:56.640 --> 00:29:59.560
And then you can chit-chat back and forth with them.

297
00:29:59.560 --> 00:30:03.400
But on Library Thing, there's also sort of a sub-group

298
00:30:03.400 --> 00:30:06.640
called Libraries of Early America.

299
00:30:06.640 --> 00:30:10.640
And they have several original library lists

300
00:30:10.640 --> 00:30:12.840
of founding fathers or famous people.

301
00:30:12.840 --> 00:30:15.560
Remember, some of the books, some of the lists,

302
00:30:15.560 --> 00:30:17.960
the personal libraries of founding fathers, we know.

303
00:30:17.960 --> 00:30:20.920
We know, for example, Thomas Jefferson's library,

304
00:30:20.920 --> 00:30:25.120
very famously, became the Library of Congress

305
00:30:25.120 --> 00:30:31.280
After he left the presidency, I think after the war of 1812, Washington had burned to

306
00:30:31.280 --> 00:30:37.320
the ground and then Jefferson sold his personal library to Congress and it became what is

307
00:30:37.320 --> 00:30:42.240
now the Library of Congress. It was Jefferson's library. So we know what books Jefferson did

308
00:30:42.240 --> 00:30:47.480
and did not have, for example. As far as I know he did not have any of these books. However,

309
00:30:47.480 --> 00:30:54.680
and LibraryThing.com, it says that George Washington owned the father of Kandor Pamphlet.

310
00:30:54.680 --> 00:31:01.400
Actually, I'm going up to Boston next week to visit the George Washington father of Kandor

311
00:31:01.400 --> 00:31:09.380
Pamphlet. Ben Franklin may have owned. The problem there is, my understanding is, his

312
00:31:09.380 --> 00:31:16.460
list of personal books has been commingled by later people, collectors who purchased

313
00:31:16.460 --> 00:31:21.940
Some of his books may have added some, may have detracted some, so it's not as clear.

314
00:31:21.940 --> 00:31:27.900
But at the Benjamin Franklin collection at Yale University, there are several of these

315
00:31:27.900 --> 00:31:30.940
pamphlets in the Benjamin Franklin collection.

316
00:31:30.940 --> 00:31:37.860
I've not been able to, shall we say, prove that Franklin owned the two that are in his

317
00:31:37.860 --> 00:31:39.060
collection there.

318
00:31:39.060 --> 00:31:42.740
But keep in mind that Franklin was a printer, a publisher, a journalist.

319
00:31:42.740 --> 00:31:49.040
We probably owned or read virtually everything that was in circulation, probably.

320
00:31:49.040 --> 00:31:54.020
So just my conclusions.

321
00:31:54.020 --> 00:32:01.660
The more I look into this, and I'm still working on it, it's an ongoing passion of mine, but

322
00:32:01.660 --> 00:32:07.160
I know of no detailed in-depth discussion of search and seizure principles that circulated

323
00:32:07.160 --> 00:32:13.400
in the pre-founding American colonies that did not include a discussion of the relationship

324
00:32:13.400 --> 00:32:16.960
between search and seizure principles and silence rights.

325
00:32:16.960 --> 00:32:21.900
And you know, just think about this, I mean, I'm looking into what people were saying about

326
00:32:21.900 --> 00:32:24.480
search and seizure at that time.

327
00:32:24.480 --> 00:32:28.560
You can find short little quips that don't mention exclusion of evidence.

328
00:32:28.560 --> 00:32:35.020
But I know of no long work on search and seizure from that period that doesn't at least mention

329
00:32:35.020 --> 00:32:42.940
The idea that illegally seized evidence should be excluded, okay?

330
00:32:42.940 --> 00:32:46.740
And this, of course, is especially true involving seizures of papers.

331
00:32:46.740 --> 00:32:51.820
Remember, there is a direct link to the idea of being a witness against yourself giving

332
00:32:51.820 --> 00:32:53.180
oral statements.

333
00:32:53.180 --> 00:32:58.980
There is a direct conceptual link between that and writings that you might write.

334
00:32:58.980 --> 00:33:03.100
I mean, it's hard to argue that there's no relationship, you know, if you have a right

335
00:33:03.100 --> 00:33:31.100
Did the Founding Fathers have access to these? Absolutely, no doubt about it. I've made several hits that indicate that important Founding Fathers own these documents, and again, this is a work in progress. I'm still, there are a lot of libraries I have not yet hit.

336
00:33:31.100 --> 00:33:53.100
And so my overarching argument is that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is soundly based in the original intent of the founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution despite the claims of many scholars otherwise. Thank you.