Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 59.0

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tion and became “[t]he driving force behind the adoption of
the  [Fourth]  Amendment.”  United  States  v.  Verdugo-
Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 266 (1990).  Prominent colonists 
decried  the  writs  as  destroying  “ ‘domestic  security’ ”  by
permitting broad searches of homes.  M. Smith, The Writs 
of Assistance Case 475 (1978) (quoting a 1772 Boston town
meeting);  see  also  id.,  at  562  (complaining  that  “ ‘every
householder  in  this  province,  will  necessarily  become  less 
secure  than  he  was  before  this  writ’ ”  (quoting  a  1762
article  in  the  Boston  Gazette));  id.,  at  493  (complaining 
that  the  writs  were  “ ‘expressly  contrary  to  the  common 
law, which ever regarded a man’s house as his castle, or a 
place of perfect security’ ” (quoting a 1768 letter from John
Dickinson)).    John  Otis,  who  argued  the  famous  Writs  of 
Assistance  case,  contended  that  the  writs  violated  “ ‘the 
fundamental  Principl[e]  of  Law’ ”  that  “ ‘[a]  Man  who  is
quiet, is as secure in his House, as a Prince in his Castle.’ ”  
Id.,  at  339  (quoting  John  Adam’s  notes).    John  Adams 
attended  Otis’  argument  and  later  drafted  Article  XIV  of
the Massachusetts Constitution,7 which served as a model 
for  the  Fourth  Amendment.  See  Clancy,  The  Framers’
Intent: John Adams, His Era, and the Fourth Amendment, 
86  Ind.  L. J.  979,  982  (2011);  Donahue,  The  Original
Fourth  Amendment,  83  U.  Chi.  L. Rev.  1181,  1269  (2016) 

—————— 

imported  in  violation  of  the  British  tax  laws.”    Stanford  v.  Texas,  379
 
U. S. 476, 481 (1965). 

7 “Every  subject  has  a  right  to  be  secure  from  all  unreasonable 
searches  and  seizures  of  his  person,  his  house,  his  papers,  and  all  his
possessions.  All warrants, therefore, are contrary to right, if the cause
or  foundation  of  them  be  not  previously  supported  by  oath  or  affirma­
tion, and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in 
suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize
their  property,  be  not  accompanied  with  a  special  designation  of  the
person or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to
be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.” 
Mass. Const., pt. I, Art. XIV (1780).