Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 82

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of  that.  A  subpoena  duces  tecum  permits  a  subpoenaed 
individual  to  conduct  the  search  for  the  relevant  docu-
ments  himself,  without  law  enforcement  officers  entering
his  home  or  rooting  through  his  papers  and  effects.    As a 
result,  subpoenas  avoid  the  many  incidental  invasions  of
privacy  that  necessarily  accompany  any  actual  search.
And  it  was  those  invasions  of  privacy—which,  although 
incidental, could often be extremely intrusive and damag-
ing—that led to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment. 

Neither  this  Court  nor  any  of  the  parties  have  offered
the  slightest  bit  of  historical  evidence  to  support  the  idea
that the Fourth Amendment originally applied to subpoe-
nas  duces  tecum  and  other  forms  of  compulsory  process.
That  is  telling,  for  as  I  have  explained,  these  forms  of 
compulsory  process  were  a  feature  of  criminal  (and  civil) 
procedure  well  known  to  the  Founders.    The  Founders 
would  thus  have  understood  that  holding  the  compulsory
production  of  documents  to  the  same  standard  as  actual
searches and seizures would cripple the work of courts in 
civil  and  criminal  cases  alike.  It would  be  remarkable  to 
think  that,  despite  that  knowledge,  the  Founders  would 
have  gone  ahead  and  sought  to  impose  such  a  require-
ment.  It would be even more incredible to believe that the 
Founders  would  have  imposed  that  requirement  through
the  inapt  vehicle  of  an  amendment  directed  at  different 
concerns.  But it would blink reality entirely to argue that
this  entire  process  happened  without  anyone  saying  the 
least thing about it—not during the drafting of the Bill of 
Rights,  not  during  any  of  the  subsequent  ratification
debates, and not for most of the century that followed.  If 
the  Founders  thought  the  Fourth  Amendment  applied  to
the compulsory production of documents, one would imag-
ine that there would be some founding-era evidence of the
Fourth  Amendment  being  applied  to  the  compulsory  pro-
duction of documents.  Cf. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public 
Company  Accounting  Oversight  Bd.,  561  U. S.  477,  505