SCOTUS grant: Caniglia v Strom, "community caretaking" for warrantless home entry

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    One of the legal gimmicks invented by judges to empower the police to violate your Fourth Amendment rights is called the “ community caretaking exception.” This rule was created 48 years ago by the Supreme Court in a decision called Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973).

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/433/

    But Cady was about a car on a public road, not the home. Searches of cars have long been held to a lower standard than searches of homes.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    But Cady was about a car on a public road, not the home. Searches of cars have long been held to a lower standard than searches of homes.

    Yes. I believe your correct. Argument set for 24 March 2021.

    here..https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/caniglia-v-strom/

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...210115163831475_Caniglia GOA amicus brief.pdf

    GOA should be the decisive brief. Me...The conservative court either 6/3 or 5/4 will confirm GOA position.

    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the lower court should be reversed.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    Government does not want to give up a power they think they have. The people are not deserving of being trusted!
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    IMO, its the liberal side of the court that has traditionally upheld citizens' rights versus police intrusion on the 4A.

    What will new consititionalists on the court do? I'm not encouraged.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,230
    Montgomery County
    My brief take is that this important ruling goes WAY beyond soothing our nerves over gun seizures in that vaguely-hand-wavy-red-flag-y-prior-to-a-court-order kinda way. The SCOTUS ruling (unanimous, happily) makes it clear that just invoking the feel-good CYA of "community caretaking" doesn't grant the government (in this case, in the form of the police) carte blanche to benevolently enter your house and have at it without clearly exigent crisis-style risks/threats manifesting themselves. In short: if there's a real concern, and there's time to get a warrant, there is no option but to WAIT FOR A WARRANT. I can see plenty of lefty statist petty tyrants crying in their soy milk over this because it diminishes the Nanny State's casually capricious, unchecked reach into your private life, affairs, home, and stuff. Good.
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    The 4A would have been useless paper if it didn't get decided this way. I am pleasantly surprised at the 9-0 vote; it gives me a scintilla of hope that rights will be upheld at the USSC. I will be elated if this sets the table for a successful challenge to red flag laws.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    The 4A would have been useless paper if it didn't get decided this way. I am pleasantly surprised at the 9-0 vote; it gives me a scintilla of hope that rights will be upheld at the USSC. I will be elated if this sets the table for a successful challenge to red flag laws.

    I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. It won't be decided on the same grounds. This was effectively "get a warrant". They had the ability and option to, but decided to exercise "community care taking". Which in the end didn't pass the mustard. That is one thing SCOTUS has been relatively consistent with. They do typically fall down on the side of "GET A FOOKING WARRANT!".

    In most cases it A) is granted (in like 99% of asks) B) typically doesn't take long (generally perhaps a few hours if there is a hurry) C) generally doesn't require all that much evidence to be presented.

    Now red flag laws may fall down on standards of evidence to allow one and/or deprivation of property without proper due process rights. I can see it losing on either of those. Or maybe both.

    But it won't for "lack of warrant" grounds. Now, you might also run in to a warrant needing to be sought on top of the ERPO if the person it is being served on refuses entry or get a warrant in advance. "I don't have any guns, now go away". No reason not to do either of those if you are going to get an ERPO to start with.

    It would sit better with me for ERPOs if there was SOME due process rights in advance and limit the scope of who can request one to just the police. In a world where they can be sought, I don't have an issue if someone goes to the police to ASK them to get one. But as an individual, all I should be able to ask a court for is an order of protection against someone. Not an order to take their property.

    If the police find the person credible they can do some leg work and then ask a judge for one. Not simply a signed statement saying "so and so's jealous ex says they called them and threatened them and they own guns".
     

    Seagrave1963

    Still learnin'
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 6, 2011
    10,001
    Eastern Shore
    I guess the Leftist will now need to add 10 Justices to the Supreme Court................

    Sarcasm aside, seems to be a slight sway back to individual rights and a bit of a smack down to government intrusion.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member

    spoon059

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 1, 2018
    5,333
    I'm not sure this is that big of a win. It seems like the obvious answer, there was time for a warrant. I don't see this having a broader impact, especially in the red flag arena.

    I'm of the belief that the court would have been fine if they took the guns initially, rather than coming back after the fact. That's already established law, so it seems clear cut that all 9 would agree.

    I wish it had a greater impact, but I'm not certain it does.

    Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    While I view this as fantastic news I'm quite certain that there are plenty of members of Congress on the left that do not. Will this be the catalyst to removing the filibuster from the Senate and stacking the supreme court?

    Nah,

    As I previously mentioned, no one is covering the story. As far MSM is concerned, this opinion is a snooze fest.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,496
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom