• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Reverses Warrantless "CareTaking" Search and Gun Seizure

Forum Boss

Administrator
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in no uncertain terms, that Americans still have Constitutional Rights protecting them against warrantless searches, and related seizure of firearms.


The Supreme Court has unanimously struck down warrantless so-called “community caretaking” searches of homes for firearms in a decision handed down today. In Caniglia v. Strom, Rhode Island police responded to a wellness check request by a man’s wife and confiscated his firearms.

Court decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

The police hung the legality of their warrant-free search on the “community caretaking” exception that allows them to search a vehicle that they’ve impounded. But that exception has never been extended to homes. The plaintiff had to sue the police department to get his guns back.

Today, however, the Supreme Court signaled — in no uncertain terms — that they aren’t interested in poking a huge hole in the Fourth Amendment.

From Forbes . . .

The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”

“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”

The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.


It’s more than a little instructive that the BidenHarris administration came down squarely on the side of giving police more power to search individuals’ homes without a warrant. As Gun Owners of America’s John Velleco wrote here regarding the implications of the case, if the Court’s decision had gone the other way . . . "It would mean yet another erosion of the ancient English notion that “a man’s home is his castle” which undergirded the Fourth Amendment. It would allow police to conduct warrantless searches of your home and seizures of your firearms on the flimsiest of excuses."
 
Full Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Here is the summary:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CANIGLIA v. STROM ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 20–157. Argued March 24, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021 During an argument with his wife, petitioner Edward Caniglia placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked his wife to “shoot [him] and get it over with.” His wife instead left the home and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning, she was unable to reach her husband by phone, so she called the police to request a welfare check. The responding officers accompanied Caniglia’s wife to the home, where they encountered Caniglia on the porch. The officers called an ambulance based on the belief that Caniglia posed a risk to himself or others. Caniglia agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation on the condition that the officers not confiscate his firearms. But once Caniglia left, the officers located and seized his weapons. Caniglia sued, claiming that the officers had entered his home and seized him and his firearms without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment to the officers. The First Circuit affirmed, extrapolating from the Court’s decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, a theory that the officers’ removal of Caniglia and his firearms from his home was justified by a “community caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement.


Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4. 953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions.
 
Definitely good news....finally.
However, the fact that two, count'em, TWO lower courts upheld the actions of the police, well, that is past SAD. A really low watermark for a jurist's interpretation of our Constitution.
 
Unfortunately the great reset/green new deal takes the supreme court and constitution into account. By eliminating private property/ownership through taxes,regulation, and social media cancel culture. Also why Democrats want to expand the court (speeds up removing individual rights) and add states (speed up legislation of federal government taking states rights).
 
Hmmmmm. Being the devil's advocate here, but what does that mean if you live in an RV & travel around the country all year? It's your home but it's also a vehicle.

I believe that situation would be similar to an OTR driver and the difference between the driver area and the sleeper area. If memory serves me there was a case that ruled a driver could have a firearm in the sleeper and not need a carry permit. Basically the sleeper berth is his "castle".
 
Not one word about this on any news station or broadcast, I watched 4 different ones.
The only mention of the supreme court was about women's rights ( abortion) coming up in the fall session.
And there is the true enemy of the people! The media has done more to stifle the free exchange of news in this country,then alot of tyrants across the world and hide behind the 1A ,the only one they agree with. Jeff
 
Boss? What does this ruling do to "Red Flag" laws? Does this ruling just stop "search and seizure" or does it address the "posed a risk to himself or others" portion of the Red Flag laws?
 
I think everyone should read it. It's not very long. What stood out to me is the "exigent circumstances doctrine" mentioned by Kavanaugh. Seems to me there isn't a clear line between "community care taking functions" and "exigent circumstances doctrine". Take those clear as mud concepts and give them to an officer with qualified immunity. The upshot is 3 years after the breech of your home, and $100k in legal fees, the probability of a favorable ruling for the homeowner, is at best a coin toss.
 
August 20&21 2015 were the dates of the incident. 4 officers on the scene. 3 thought Caniglia seemed reasonable. But the senior officer thought he seemed agitated. It took a lawyer and lawsuit and he got his guns back in December. Then 5 3/4 years from the incident to get some judicial affirmation that the police were incorrect. I don't see much changing unless this ruling is internalized at the officer level as a deterrent. Hell, if they would have returned the guns before official legal action maybe nothing would have happened. That could mean the police might hold your guns for 2-3 months without issue.
 
No-one has addressed the effect on Red Flag Laws. The Red Flag Laws are the most draconian. It only takes one overzealous enemy or a simple mistake on a form by a Doctor and you are in an expensive court battle. No simple way to reverse the action.

And, tcmikey, is unfortunately correct.
 
Last edited:

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,337
Messages
2,216,569
Members
79,554
Latest member
GerSteve
Back
Top