Jump to content

Caniglia vs. Strom


hceuterpe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I haven't heard of this case until just today, and it seems like a potential landmark 2A/4A ruling.

 

This case involves warrantless search and seizure (in this case, firearms) conducted against homes under the Fourth Amendment's community caretaking exception. Seems like traditionally the exception's doctrine had a very narrowly confined ruling limited to impounded vehicles, and the reduced expectation of privacy associated with it, yet the courts (and LEOs) went way too far and extended it's application to homes, which have the highest expectation of privacy.

 

This seems to have broad support with amicus briefs filed from all sorts of groups/organizations. IMO, even for supporters of red flag laws (that typically have at least some aspect of due process and necessitates court ordered warrants for seizure), SCOTUS needs to overturn this case because otherwise continued use of that exception circumvents the need for red flag laws to even exist.

 

 

SCOTUS agreed to hear the case back in November, and is schedule for argument on March 24, 2021.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Caniglia_v._Strom

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if this was explained correctly to me...

This would possibly grant the ability of the police to bypass the warrant process, if they thought / suspected that someone could be in danger in a persons home and search for and seize firearms or other weapons.

 

Example - ?

Bubba gets pulled over while driving, the officer notices Bubba seems depressed. Bubba tells the officer that he lost his job a couple of months ago and it's just been a depressing time and hopes things will get better soon.

The officer calls Bubba's local PD department and they know Bubba has a FOID, so for his own safety the police go to his home and search for and seize all firearms. Bypassing the courts under "community caretakers".

 

Is that about rite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Is that about rite right?

... except that if the court upholds the "community caretaker" power, then the police don't need a warrant or even a court order (e.g., "red flag" order). They can just do it.

 

Essentially the police power to search someone's home and to seize firearms from the home is reduced from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. It's really a 4A case. They're just using firearms to get the camel's nose in the tent.

 

Next I would imagine they'd use the argument for drugs. Drugs hurt the community. They need to search the home for drugs and seize them now, because they can't wait for (i.e., cannot substantiate) probable cause. And then etc. etc. etc. until no cop has to get a warrant for anything. "He was furtive, so we searched his home for anything that could hurt the community."

 

I don't really see the Supreme Court upholding warrantless searches and seizures of the home. It's just a matter of how hard it slams them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

Is that about rite right?

 

I don't really see the Supreme Court upholding warrantless searches and seizures of the home. It's just a matter of how hard it slams them down.

 

We won’t know until they make a decision, it probably wont be 9-0 in support of the 4th and the home privacy protections.

Heck!

For some reason, not released to the public, the head of the Supreme Court will not be involved in an impeachment trial, despite the constitution stating that they are supposed to be!

 

Im not sure what we are to expect of SCOTUS these days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant even reliably depend on the "conservative" and "constitutionalist" judges to follow the constitution.

 

As for the chief justice not participating in the impeachment.... the only logic that comes to mind is maybe since its a private citizen and questionably constitutional it may wind up in front of the court and he doesnt want to recuse....... but thats for another thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

And Biden is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts decision.

(sarcasm on
They want to kick in your door without a warrant and just have a look around, let’s give Slow joe a 2nd term! :clap:

(Sarcasm off)

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=7b0caffb2829

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Biden is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts decision.

(sarcasm on

They want to kick in your door without a warrant and just have a look around, let’s give Slow joe a 2nd term! :clap:

(Sarcasm off)

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=7b0caffb2829

 

Wow, Biden sure is pulling the Democratic anchor claiming1 the Constitution and it's protected rights are just suggestions and optional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Forbes

That's a nice article.

...

However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he "did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria" or medical professionals for his decisions that day.

 

Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn't their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn't seize his guns while he was gone.

 

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

...

In jurisdictions that have extended the community caretaking exception to homes, "everything from loud music to leaky pipes have been used to justify warrantless invasion of the home," a joint amicus brief by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union revealed.

...

Noting that "the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness,'" the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be "presumptively required when a government official's action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety."

...

Expanding the community caretaking exception to "allow warrantless entries into peoples' homes on a whim," argued the [institute for Justice] brief, "invokes the arbitrary, looming threat of general writs that so incited the Framers" and would undermine "the right of the people to be secure" in their homes.

...

"The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization," said Institute for Justice Attorney Joshua Windham. "A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as 'community caretakers' is a threat to everyone's security."

Wow, Biden sure is pulling the Democratic anchor claiming1 the Constitution and it's protected rights are just suggestions and optional.

That's not what the DoJ is saying. It's saying those rights are rights to protect you from incrimination. If the cops want to enter your home for any reason other than to conduct a criminal investigation, then your Constitutional protections do not apply.

 

The political party of the administration doesn't matter. A Republican or Democratic administration would argue to expand the power of the government, because the DoJ represents the government and it's its job to argue for its client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what the DoJ is saying. It's saying those rights are rights to protect you from incrimination. If the cops want to enter your home for any reason other than to conduct a criminal investigation, then your Constitutional protections do not apply.

The political party of the administration doesn't matter. A Republican or Democratic administration would argue to expand the power of the government, because the DoJ represents the government and it's its job to argue for its client.

 

 

And I disagree, the fact his property was taken without compensation and not for a criminal related reason and it required he file lawsuits to get it returned is what believe to in fact be a violation of rights both the 4th and 14th, plus this is not the only right Biden is ready to infringe upon on a whim, he is threatening the 2nd as I type so I stand by what I said.

 

I will never agree that the 4th and 14th doesn't protect you from cops entering your home, searching and seizing items without a warrant as long as it's not for a criminal investigation. Where is the due process of law in that and where does it end?

 

If you disagree we will have to beg to differ.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RBG and Scalia would have been on the same side on this case. I think it will get knocked down more than a 5-4 decision. Rights in the home are sacrosanct. Frankly, RBG would have agreed with the ACLU to overturn. She was their lead counsel. Scalia would have agreed to overturn based on 2A and government intrusion on those rights.

 

Who knows what would be decided if it was drugs or another issue. Because this involved firearms, it was the perfect case to set case law with greater support. It will send a message to the appellate courts that justices are united on this issue of rights in the home. It takes four justices to accept a case. I'll bet this one got much greater support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Court rules your rights do apply at your home regardless of the "community caretaking principle" that police have used to enter and search other locations without a warrant.

 

“The Court unanimously ruled that the government cannot invade a private house without permission, a warrant, or an emergency."

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/553863-justices-decline-to-give-police-more-power-to-search-homes-without

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-shuts-down-police-attempts-search-homes-without-warrant

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for a 9-0 decision. The decisions of the lower courts to uphold the warrantless search were vacated. The case was remanded back to trial court.

 

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. ... 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." ... 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. ...

 

What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much, and this Court has repeatedly "declined to expand the scope of ... exceptions to the warrant requirement to permit warrantless entry into the home." ... We thus vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Remanded to trial court means Caniglia may continue to sue the City of Cranston, RI, to return his seized firearms.

 

Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he was joined by Justice Kavanaugh, raising points that this decision did not address.

  • Seizing a person for a psychological examination to prevent a risk of imminent suicide
  • "Red flag" laws
  • Exigent circumstances to render immediate medical assistance
Alito said these were only examples of things which this decision did not address. There could be others. Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we know this ruling had essentially nothing to do with the 2nd, and was a 4th case, that said...

 

I have been browsing a few 'anti-gun' places today and they are flipping their collective lids that the court ruled 9-0 that police can't enter your house and take your guns away without a warrant, collectively they are in full on panic mode!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Court rules your rights do apply at your home regardless of the "community caretaking principle" that police have used to enter and search other locations without a warrant.

 

“The Court unanimously ruled that the government cannot invade a private house without permission, a warrant, or an emergency."

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/553863-justices-decline-to-give-police-more-power-to-search-homes-without

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-shuts-down-police-attempts-search-homes-without-warrant

 

Hey Flynn beat me to it!

 

The way I read it. The ruling more specifically states that the community caretaking exception (which originally was ruled in relation to vehicles) of the 4th amendment, does not reasonably extend to private homes. And that a warrant is necessary.

 

Honestly I'm actually a bit shocked of the unanimous 9-0 ruling. I wasn't expecting it would happen in the slightest.. Definitely thought there would be at least one justice dissenting.

Edited by hceuterpe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we know this ruling had essentially nothing to do with the 2nd, and was a 4th case, that said...

 

I have been browsing a few 'anti-gun' places today and they are flipping their collective lids that the court ruled 9-0 that police can't enter your house and take your guns away without a warrant, collectively they are in full on panic mode!

The police need to enter their homes and confiscate their copies of the Communist Manifesto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we know this ruling had essentially nothing to do with the 2nd, and was a 4th case, that said...

 

I have been browsing a few 'anti-gun' places today and they are flipping their collective lids that the court ruled 9-0 that police can't enter your house and take your guns away without a warrant, collectively they are in full on panic mode!

Good! Let them loose it, maybe they will realize it’s a lousy idea and the court 100% (maybe 900% ) disagrees with them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for a 9-0 decision. The decisions of the lower courts to uphold the warrantless search were vacated. The case was remanded back to trial court.

 

...

Remanded to trial court means Caniglia may continue to sue the City of Cranston, RI, to return his seized firearms.

 

Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he was joined by Justice Kavanaugh, raising points that this decision did not address.

  • Seizing a person for a psychological examination to prevent a risk of imminent suicide
  • "Red flag" laws
  • Exigent circumstances to render immediate medical assistance
Alito said these were only examples of things which this decision did not address. There could be others.

 

 

 

Alito wrote:

This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized.

He observed, “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for a 9-0 decision. The decisions of the lower courts to uphold the warrantless search were vacated. The case was remanded back to trial court.

 

...

Remanded to trial court means Caniglia may continue to sue the City of Cranston, RI, to return his seized firearms.

 

Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he was joined by Justice Kavanaugh, raising points that this decision did not address.

  • Seizing a person for a psychological examination to prevent a risk of imminent suicide
  • "Red flag" laws
  • Exigent circumstances to render immediate medical assistance
Alito said these were only examples of things which this decision did not address. There could be others.

 

 

 

Alito wrote:

This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized.

He observed, “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.”

 

I would be interested to know if Thomas and Alito "tag-teamed" this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he was joined by Justice Kavanaugh, raising points that this decision did not address.

  • Seizing a person for a psychological examination to prevent a risk of imminent suicide
  • "Red flag" laws
  • Exigent circumstances to render immediate medical assistance
Alito said these were only examples of things which this decision did not address. There could be others.

 

 

Alito wrote:

...

He observed, "Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us."

 

Yeah, just because this case didn't deal with red flag laws doesn't mean red flag laws are immune to Supreme Court review. I suspect Alito's reference was to the 4th Amendment criteria by which red flag orders are issued. There's a lot of variation from state to state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...