Jump to content


Caniglia vs. Strom

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 hceuterpe


  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 14

Posted 01 February 2021 - 06:02 PM

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.





#2 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,394 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 February 2021 - 07:52 PM

Yes, I think this will be very interesting.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#3 mab22


  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,510 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 08 February 2021 - 01:21 PM

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?

Void the FOID!

#4 Rangerdeepv


  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 15

Posted 08 February 2021 - 03:41 PM

Seems about right. Don't say anything to the federales and when the MD asks if you own firearms always tell the truth and say no!

#5 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 22,900 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 08 February 2021 - 04:09 PM

Thanks for posting this. Forbes has an analysis that's pretty interesting.

#6 Euler


  • Members
  • 3,379 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 February 2021 - 04:09 PM

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.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.

#7 mab22


  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,510 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 08 February 2021 - 11:59 PM


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. 

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. 

Void the FOID!

#8 cope


  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 09 February 2021 - 12:38 AM

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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users