Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting
 

A 

The order in this case was the functional equivalent of a
subpoena  for  documents,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that 
these writs were regarded as “searches” at the time of the 
founding.  Subpoenas  duces  tecum  and  other  forms  of 
compulsory  document  production  were  well  known  to  the
founding  generation.    Blackstone  dated  the  first  writ  of 
subpoena  to  the  reign  of  King  Richard  II  in  the  late  14th
century,  and  by  the  end  of  the  15th  century,  the  use  of 
such  writs  had  “become  the  daily  practice  of  the  [Chan-
cery] court.”  3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws 
of England 53 (G. Tucker ed. 1803) (Blackstone).  Over the 
next 200 years, subpoenas would grow in prominence and 
power  in  tandem  with  the  Court  of  Chancery,  and  by  the 
end  of  Charles  II’s  reign  in  1685,  two  important  innova-
tions had occurred. 

First, the Court of Chancery developed a new species of
subpoena.  Until  this  point,  subpoenas  had  been  used
largely  to  compel  attendance  and  oral  testimony  from
witnesses;  these  subpoenas  correspond  to  today’s  subpoe-
nas  ad  testificandum.    But  the  Court  of  Chancery  also
improvised  a  new  version  of  the  writ  that  tacked  onto  a 
regular subpoena an order compelling the witness to bring
certain  items  with  him.  By  issuing  these  so-called  sub-
poenas  duces  tecum,  the  Court  of  Chancery  could  compel
the production of papers, books, and other forms of physi-
cal evidence, whether from the parties to the case or from
third  parties.    Such  subpoenas  were  sufficiently  common-
place by 1623 that a leading treatise on the practice of law 
could refer in passing to the fee for a “Sub pœna of Ducas 
tecum” (seven shillings and two pence) without needing to 
elaborate further.  T. Powell, The Attourneys Academy 79 
(1623).  Subpoenas  duces  tecum  would  swell  in  use  over 
the next century as the rules for their application became
ever  more  developed  and  definite.    See,  e.g.,  1  G.  Jacob, 
The  Compleat  Chancery-Practiser  290  (1730)  (“The  Sub-