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!
  • Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    A Friday surprise!
    Nov 20 2020 Petition GRANTED.

    SCOTUSBlog commentary on the grant:
    The two new cases that the court agreed to review both involve disputes over police conduct. The Fourth Amendment normally requires police to obtain a warrant for searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has carved out several exceptions to this general rule, including one for when police are serving a “community caretaking” function – activities that don’t have anything to do with fighting crime, but instead are focused on providing help. In Caniglia v. Strom, the justices on Friday agreed to decide whether the exception applies to the home.

    The case arose after police officers went to the Cranston, Rhode Island, home of 68-year-old Edward Caniglia, when his wife requested a wellness check. After a local firefighter persuaded Caniglia to go to the hospital, police officers – believing that “Caniglia and others could be in danger” – entered the home and took Caniglia’s guns. Caniglia sued the city and police officers in federal court, arguing (among other things) that the police officers’ entry into his home and seizure of the guns without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled that the police officers’ actions were covered by the “community caretaking” exception, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld that decision.

    Caniglia went to the Supreme Court in August, where he argued that the justices should take up his case because the lower courts are “deeply divided” on the question whether the “community caretaking” exception applies to the home. The lower court’s decision is also simply wrong, he added, because the Supreme Court intended the exception to apply only to cars.

    The city and police officers countered that there is no conflict among the lower courts, which have looked at the “unique facts” of each case and “routinely” allow officers to enter homes without a warrant in “dire” circumstances. Moreover, they added, the Supreme Court did not limit the exception to cars, and the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the police from entering homes to defuse potentially dangerous situations.



    Supreme Court docket

    From the petition, the only mention of the 2A in the entire SCOTUS filing:
    Petitioner alleged, by way of § 1983 claims, that Defendants had violated his rights under the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    1,154
    Deep Blue MD
    Hopefully ACB and the rest of the Justices see this as nothing more than a gun grab. If police enter to render help they should not be searching or seizing anything. They way this reads it sounds like they were trying to use the red flag law without anyone reporting them. So are they now allowed to issue a Red Flag themselves.

    For the right and for gun owners now is our hill. They are coming after our rights at an exponential rate.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Hopefully ACB and the rest of the Justices see this as nothing more than a gun grab. If police enter to render help they should not be searching or seizing anything. They way this reads it sounds like they were trying to use the red flag law without anyone reporting them. So are they now allowed to issue a Red Flag themselves.

    For the right and for gun owners now is our hill. They are coming after our rights at an exponential rate.

    It's not about gun grabbing. It's about core 4A issues, the fact that over the years lots of asterisks have been inked in to the BoR ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*")

    *Except when..it's inconvenient for the Government and they're too lazy to obtain a warrant.

    Maybe after this gets addressed, SCOTUS will have another look at civil seizures, too.
     

    Glaron

    Camp pureblood 13R
    BANNED!!!
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    12,752
    Virginia
    Really is not the best case.

    Police became judge and jury in a marriage/divorce kerfufflee.

    Their testimony seems to contradict both husband and wife.

    Wasnt there. But the layout shows the wife called.. Left and They kept on going beyond the complaint. Community caretaking.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    It's not about gun grabbing. It's about core 4A issues, the fact that over the years lots of asterisks have been inked in to the BoR ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*")

    *Except when..it's inconvenient for the Government and they're too lazy to obtain a warrant.

    Maybe after this gets addressed, SCOTUS will have another look at civil seizures, too.
    Exactly.
    He was in a hospital getting help. The police certainly had time to get a warrant and his house wasn't going anywhere, they could have posted an officer to watch it.
     

    StantonCree

    Watch your beer
    Jan 23, 2011
    23,932
    Exactly.
    He was in a hospital getting help. The police certainly had time to get a warrant and his house wasn't going anywhere, they could have posted an officer to watch it.

    I agree with this. As mentioned it, on face value, seems like a paperless red flag. I don’t see how this actually survives a 4A.

    Warrantless should be used in exigency and i don’t see that from the brief excerpt I’ve read.


    https://casetext.com/case/caniglia-v-strom

    EDIT BELOW

    Ehhhhh after reading the actual incident I’m not as mad about it. Went down a lot different then the OP excerpt and my assumptions.
     

    Matlack

    Scribe
    Dec 15, 2008
    8,556
    The court needs to address the conflict of police, fire, ems have no duty to the public and they have a duty to the public. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This fits that perfectly as if they have no duty to the public then community caretaking doesn't exist.
     

    StantonCree

    Watch your beer
    Jan 23, 2011
    23,932
    The court needs to address the conflict of police, fire, ems have no duty to the public and they have a duty to the public. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This fits that perfectly as if they have no duty to the public then community caretaking doesn't exist.

    I think you might need to read Warren again. Warren deals with individual relationships and doesn’t fit here. At least not in my amateur opinion.

    There was some Az case about reckless drivers killing people and the courts ruled cops have to try and protect the general public and not the individuals.

    But this is all off topic
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    I love how they claim to be police to get qualified immunity, and then say they are not police but community caretakers so they can dodge the 4th amendment. Well which is it? You want the benefit of qualified immunity? Then you get everything that comes with it, which means requiring a warrant.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    1,154
    Deep Blue MD
    It's not about gun grabbing. It's about core 4A issues, the fact that over the years lots of asterisks have been inked in to the BoR ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*")

    *Except when..it's inconvenient for the Government and they're too lazy to obtain a warrant.

    Maybe after this gets addressed, SCOTUS will have another look at civil seizures, too.

    No one said 4A had nothing to do but lets be real here they knew there were guns there and they wanted to take them.

    I believe warrants should be needed for everything and not given out like candy. I know SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect the public so Red Flag and Community Care goes against this.

    But we all know those guns were the motivation. Biden isnt officially anything yet no matter what offices he makes up and the ATF are already starting to carry out his wants and police and Libs are going all out on gun grabbing now too. And its only gonna get worse.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    No one said 4A had nothing to do but lets be real here they knew there were guns there and they wanted to take them.

    I believe warrants should be needed for everything and not given out like candy. I know SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect the public so Red Flag and Community Care goes against this.

    Guns were the reason for the police confiscation action, but the issue for SCOTUS will be 4A.
     

    StantonCree

    Watch your beer
    Jan 23, 2011
    23,932
    No one said 4A had nothing to do but lets be real here they knew there were guns there and they wanted to take them.

    I believe warrants should be needed for everything and not given out like candy. I know SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect the public so Red Flag and Community Care goes against this.

    But we all know those guns were the motivation. Biden isnt officially anything yet no matter what offices he makes up and the ATF are already starting to carry out his wants and police and Libs are going all out on gun grabbing now too. And its only gonna get worse.

    Sigh where to begin........

    A) i think you also need to reread Warren

    B) the police didn’t just pick this guy at random. The guy threw a gun at his wife and told her to kill him. The guy admitted he did this as well. His mental capacity was clearly diminished and in a bad state.

    Now i do agree they should have secured a red flag warrant to seize the firearms (i also don’t like red flag laws) but this man was a danger at that time.

    After cleared by the health professionals his firearms should have been returned though.

    The police aren’t health professionals and upon being released from the health professionals......well i dunno how i wanna phrase that cuz i also don’t like the idea of them determining our rights.
     

    ed bernay

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    I love how they claim to be police to get qualified immunity, and then say they are not police but community caretakers so they can dodge the 4th amendment. Well which is it? You want the benefit of qualified immunity? Then you get everything that comes with it, which means requiring a warrant.

    Could this be a good case to dilute qualified immunity? I feel like we need it diluted right now especially with local government actions and Covid 19. Making government officials personally pay when they are found violating our rights could help push back on their overreach.
     

    Afrikeber

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2013
    6,689
    Urbana, Md.
    Could this be a good case to dilute qualified immunity? I feel like we need it diluted right now especially with local government actions and Covid 19. Making government officials personally pay when they are found violating our rights could help push back on their overreach.

    I second that motion.
     

    jkeys

    Active Member
    Jan 30, 2013
    665
    Sigh where to begin........

    A) i think you also need to reread Warren

    B) the police didn’t just pick this guy at random. The guy threw a gun at his wife and told her to kill him. The guy admitted he did this as well. His mental capacity was clearly diminished and in a bad state.

    Now i do agree they should have secured a red flag warrant to seize the firearms (i also don’t like red flag laws) but this man was a danger at that time.

    After cleared by the health professionals his firearms should have been returned though.

    The police aren’t health professionals and upon being released from the health professionals......well i dunno how i wanna phrase that cuz i also don’t like the idea of them determining our rights.

    No, they shouldn't have used red flag laws for this. If the person was a threat to himself or others then existing laws allow them to get a warrant and they should have.
     

    1911msc

    Member
    May 12, 2020
    18
    North San Diego
    Sigh where to begin........

    A) i think you also need to reread Warren

    B) the police didn’t just pick this guy at random. The guy threw a gun at his wife and told her to kill him. The guy admitted he did this as well. His mental capacity was clearly diminished and in a bad state.

    Now i do agree they should have secured a red flag warrant to seize the firearms (i also don’t like red flag laws) but this man was a danger at that time.

    After cleared by the health professionals his firearms should have been returned though.

    The police aren’t health professionals and upon being released from the health professionals......well i dunno how i wanna phrase that cuz i also don’t like the idea of them determining our rights.
    Why not give guns to chimps? What do you want from police if not this. Each gun suicide puts a nail in the coffin of gun rights.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    Why stop at taking the guy's guns?

    If he's intent on self-destruction, confiscate the contents of his medicine cabinet, any alcoholic beverages on the premises, his car keys, remove dangerous kitchen tools, seal off the upper floors of his dwelling to prevent him harming himself.

    Why stop there? There are cars, trucks and buses he could jump in front of, any number of methods of ending his existence are available if he's allowed to roam at will.

    The alternative would be confinement in an institution until he was no longer a danger to himself, which seemed to be the method chosen. Taking his weapon would seem to be going a step too far. If institutionalisation was not going to restore his interest in living, locking him up for the rest of his life would be the only solution, apparently.

    A man's life is his own. Let him do with it what he will. He didn't appear to threaten his wife, merely indicated that he no longer wished to carry on. Whether that was a reasonable, informed choice is not for me to determine. Whether he would have regretted making it had he been dissuaded is unknowable.

    Freedom is scary. Let's make it go away; it's for your own good.
    .
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    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/

    Held:

    1. The warrantless search of the Ford did not violate the Fourth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. The search was not unreasonable, since the police had exercised a form of custody of the car, which constituted a hazard on the highway, and the disposition of which by respondent was precluded by his intoxicated and later comatose condition; and the revolver search was standard police procedure to protect the public from a weapon's possibly falling into improper hands. Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, distinguished; Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234, followed. Pp. 413 U. S. 439-448.

    2. The seizure of the sock and floor mat from the Dodge was not invalid, since the Dodge, the item "particularly described," was the subject of a proper search warrant. It is not constitutionally significant that the sock and mat were not listed in the

    Page 413 U. S. 434

    warrant's return, which (contrary to the assumption of the Court of Appeals) was not filed prior to the search, and the warrant was thus validly outstanding at the time the articles were discovered. Pp. 413 U. S. 448-450.

    471 F.2d 280, reversed.

    REHNQUIST, J., wrote the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 413 U. S. 450.

    Me.. This does not seem to be the same. The car was a hazard on the highway. Neither husband nor wife were drinking. Police returned to house to confiscate "his" firearms. How about community property being seized? Husband and wife both own property including firearms.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,937
    Messages
    7,259,612
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom