Close
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Machine Gunner DenverGP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Anna Tx
    Posts
    1,541

    Default Supreme Court rules 9-0 police cannot abuse 4th amendment & seize guns from home without warrant

    Supreme Court rules 9-0 police cannot abuse 4th amendment & seize guns from home without warrant

    CANIGLIA v. STROM ET AL.

    Details on the case itself:

    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.


    Ruling:
    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 un-reasonable 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.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-157_8mjp.pdf
    Last edited by DenverGP; 05-17-2021 at 14:11.
    'Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground' - Judge Benitez , 2019, Duncan v. Becerra.

    'One of the ordinary modes by which Tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms.' Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •