Jump to content


Photo

Caniglia vs. Strom


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 hceuterpe

    Member

  • 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.

 

https://ballotpedia....niglia_v._Strom

 

 



#2 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,461 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

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,581 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

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 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
  • 23,152 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

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,506 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

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,581 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. 
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. 
 


Void the FOID!

#8 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 500 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



#9 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,581 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 26 March 2021 - 06:42 PM

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.c...sh=7b0caffb2829


Void the FOID!

#10 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,708 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 26 March 2021 - 06:52 PM

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.c...sh=7b0caffb2829

 

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


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#11 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 March 2021 - 07:42 PM

...
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.
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.


#12 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,708 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 26 March 2021 - 07:57 PM

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, 26 March 2021 - 07:58 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#13 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 March 2021 - 08:00 PM

And I disagree, ...

If you disagree we will have to beg to differ.


You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the DoJ. I'm just pointing out what the DoJ's argument is.
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.


#14 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 March 2021 - 08:32 PM

BTW, SCOTUS docket is 20-157
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.


#15 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 03 April 2021 - 07:10 PM

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.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users