Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 86

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

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Court  held  that  the  Fourth  Amendment  “at  the  most 
guards  against  abuse  only  by  way  of  too  much  indefinite-
ness  or  breadth  in  the  things  required  to  be  ‘particularly
described,’ if also the inquiry is one the demanding agency 
is  authorized  by  law  to  make  and  the  materials  specified 
are  relevant.”    Oklahoma  Press,  supra,  at  208.  Notably,
the  Court  held  that  a  showing  of  probable  cause  was  not 
necessary  so  long  as  “the  investigation  is  authorized  by
Congress,  is  for  a  purpose  Congress  can  order,  and  the
documents sought are relevant to the inquiry.”  Id., at 209. 
Since  Oklahoma  Press,  we  have  consistently  hewed  to
that  standard.  See,  e.g.,  Lone  Steer,  Inc.,  464  U. S.,  at 
414–415;  United  States  v.  Miller,  425  U. S.  435,  445–446 
(1976);  California  Bankers  Assn.  v.  Shultz,  416  U. S.  21, 
67  (1974);  United  States  v.  Dionisio,  410  U. S.  1,  11–12 
(1973);  See  v.  Seattle,  387  U. S.  541,  544  (1967);  United 
States  v.  Powell,  379  U. S.  48,  57–58  (1964);  McPhaul  v. 
United  States,  364  U. S.  372,  382–383  (1960);  United 
States  v.  Morton  Salt  Co.,  338  U. S.  632,  652–653  (1950); 
cf. McLane Co. v. EEOC, 581 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., 
at 11).  By applying Oklahoma Press and thereby respect-
ing  “the  traditional  distinction  between  a  search  warrant
and  a  subpoena,”  Miller,  supra,  at  446,  this  Court  has 
reinforced  “the  basic  compromise”  between  “the  public
interest” in every man’s evidence and the private interest
“of  men  to  be  free  from  officious  meddling.”    Oklahoma 
Press, supra, at 213. 

D 
Today,  however,  the  majority  inexplicably  ignores  the
settled  rule  of  Oklahoma  Press  in  favor  of  a  resurrected 
version  of  Boyd.  That  is  mystifying.  This  should  have 
been an easy case regardless of whether the Court looked 
to the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment or
to our modern doctrine. 

As  a  matter  of  original  understanding,  the  Fourth