The Supreme Court made expansive interpretations of the constitutional guarantees against compulsory self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures.
The federal government charged New York merchants George Boyd and Edward Boyd with a civil offense for importing plate glass without paying the required duty. Using a federal statute, officials obtained a court order instructing the Boyds to produce the invoices for the goods. When the invoices were used as evidence, the Boyds claimed that the government had violated their rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The government argued that there had been no physical invasion of property and that the amendments applied only to criminal trials.
In Bradwell, Justice Joseph P. Bradley argued that the "natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life."
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boyds and found part of the customs statute unconstitutional. Justice Joseph P. Bradley
The Boyd decision was a watershed in providing a liberal interpretation of privacy rights by joining the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to common law principles. Also, the decision initiated the development of the exclusionary rule. Boyd’s mere evidence rule, however, was eventually abandoned in Warden v. Hayden
Exclusionary rule
Fifth Amendment
Fourth Amendment
Search warrant requirement
Self-incrimination, immunity against
Weeks v. United States
