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

Name Taken · May 17, 2021

spoon059 said:
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

I would agree. This seems like a "Hey Sgt. I got this gun" type of situation. I'm sure if you asked the officer just prior to entering the room, the legal premise he was operating under, they likely couldn't have told you...or couldn't have told you a valid reason.

Occam · May 17, 2021

Muleskinner said:
Will this be the catalyst to removing the filibuster from the Senate and stacking the supreme court?

I don‘t see why. Even the far left justices were on board with this ruling. Not sure why you think that would make people like Joe Manchin or Kysten Sinema reverse everything they‘ve been doubling down on since the election.

ToolAA · May 17, 2021

Inigoes said:
Nah,

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

That’s because it’s non-controversial / non-inflammatory. A 9-0 ruling means everyone in the room agreed on something and we can’t have that.

Mark75H · May 17, 2021

9-0 should be a slapdown to the lower courts - "YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE EVEN SENT THIS TO US, YOU IDIOTS!"

wabbit · May 18, 2021

Inigoes said:
Nah,

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

the only story I found was this : https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...police-violated-gun-owners-rights/5137536001/

Mark75H said:
9-0 should be a slapdown to the lower courts - "YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE EVEN SENT THIS TO US, YOU IDIOTS!"

I hope this reminder to the police to obtain warrants is a good step in countering the red flag laws. The Cranston, RI, police seized his guns and entered his house based solely on the word of his angry wife who had a fight with him the day before. That's not much different from red flag laws where someone says "that guy has guns and can hurt someone" then the police use it as justification to enter a person's house and confiscate all their guns.

lazarus · May 18, 2021

spoon059 said:
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

I think it is. It is one step back from police over reach. Many officers and some departments are absolutely interested in following the law and the constitution. But most are like almost any other human. Whatever makes the job easier or safer. The fact that maybe someone's rights might get violate, meh. They know best. Just like all of the cops who are honestly trying to put away bad guys and have no problems planting drugs or a gun on the bad guy, because well, they KNOW they are a bad guy, but just haven't been able to pin something on them sufficient to arrest them or get a successful prosecution.

A warrant takes some work. So, meh, if we don't HAVE to get one, why get one? In this case police probably would have been able to get a warrant and take the guns. This isn't the case of "wow, massive police over reach in a case where they should have never done anything". The point of this decision is to protect the people where it is obvious overreach and getting a warrant probably would have proved that out. Cops are going to know their affidavits are on that warrant application. It won't stop some of them, but it will stop a lot of them when they know their evidence is flimsy at best.

Warrants reduce police overreaction and is that one extra step to make sure the evidence really does dictate police take the course of action they do.

Now if we could get a decision smacking down civil forfeiture...

Occam · May 18, 2021

lazarus said:
Now if we could get a decision smacking down civil forfeiture...

Timbs vs. Indiana. SCOTUS ruled in 2019 that the 8th Amendment's protections against excessive fines applied to not just federal law enforcement, but at the state level, as well. Significant impact on state and local civil forfeiture practices as a way to raise revenue.

https://www.lp.org/reason-supreme-court-delivers-unanimous-victory-for-asset-forfeiture-challenge/

Allen65 · May 18, 2021

Occam said:
Timbs vs. Indiana. SCOTUS ruled in 2019 that the 8th Amendment's protections against excessive fines applied to not just federal law enforcement, but at the state level, as well. Significant impact on state and local civil forfeiture practices as a way to raise revenue.

https://www.lp.org/reason-supreme-court-delivers-unanimous-victory-for-asset-forfeiture-challenge/

That affected the revenue and excessiveness aspects of civil seizures. But it didn't really address the core problem, which is use of civil procedure as an end run around BoR protections for criminal defendants when the Government's real purpose is to mete out punishment for criminal behavior rather than to provide redress for torts.

JMangle · May 19, 2021

Muleskinner said:
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?

Seagrave1963 said:
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.

I can't be the only one that thinks that destroying 1/3 of our Federal Government would be a dangerous catalyst towards a no-BS Civil War. It scares me that this is even being talked about.

Boondock Saint · May 19, 2021

This certainly beats the pants off of "I like taking the guns early" and "take the guns first, go through due process second."

Seagrave1963 · May 19, 2021

JMangle said:
I can't be the only one that thinks that destroying 1/3 of our Federal Government would be a dangerous catalyst towards a no-BS Civil War. It scares me that this is even being talked about.

Agreed - the seemingly continuous campaign to destroy the system of "checks and balances" should be extremely concerning. My sarcasm of the topic was certainly not intended to be flippant or shallow.

MDFF2008 · May 19, 2021

I would expect the catalyst to be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision with Kavanaugh or Barret writing the opinion.

Look at the gun and abortion cases that have recently been docketed.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

spoon059 · May 19, 2021

lazarus said:
I think it is. It is one step back from police over reach. Many officers and some departments are absolutely interested in following the law and the constitution. But most are like almost any other human. Whatever makes the job easier or safer. The fact that maybe someone's rights might get violate, meh. They know best. Just like all of the cops who are honestly trying to put away bad guys and have no problems planting drugs or a gun on the bad guy, because well, they KNOW they are a bad guy, but just haven't been able to pin something on them sufficient to arrest them or get a successful prosecution.

A warrant takes some work. So, meh, if we don't HAVE to get one, why get one? In this case police probably would have been able to get a warrant and take the guns. This isn't the case of "wow, massive police over reach in a case where they should have never done anything". The point of this decision is to protect the people where it is obvious overreach and getting a warrant probably would have proved that out. Cops are going to know their affidavits are on that warrant application. It won't stop some of them, but it will stop a lot of them when they know their evidence is flimsy at best.

Warrants reduce police overreaction and is that one extra step to make sure the evidence really does dictate police take the course of action they do.

Now if we could get a decision smacking down civil forfeiture...

I agree with most of this. My point was that this ruling went have the major impact that some people here hope it will. It doesn't address police taking the guns, it just addresses the police needing a simple warrant to obtain them.

Many people, myself included, want erpo laws to go away. This case isn't doing it.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

wabbit · May 19, 2021

spoon059 said:
I agree with most of this. My point was that this ruling went have the major impact that some people here hope it will. It doesn't address police taking the guns, it just addresses the police needing a simple warrant to obtain them.

Many people, myself included, want erpo laws to go away. This case isn't doing it.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

Isn't the point of the 4th Amendment protections, that the government officials can't arbitrarily take private property based on their whim like what happens in many third world countries? I don't see how this is a bad ruling in any way since it reinforces the requirement for police to obtain a warrant in compliance with the law to take someone's guns or other personal property. The fact that the property taken was guns doesn't make this ruling any lesser a reminder to police they have to follow the laws. It sounds like you are unhappy because police can still confiscate guns, as long as they get a warrant. They can and should, if it is justified and follow the law, as the case with confiscating guns from convicted felons.

rbird7282 · May 19, 2021

Muleskinner said:
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?

Just stop already. It’s almost like you want that to happen so you can tell everyone here “I told you so”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gtodave · May 19, 2021

rbird7282 said:
Just stop already. It’s almost like you want that to happen so you can tell everyone here “I told you so”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, there's lots of people in power (including the president) who are in favor of it. Whether they have the balls or not to try it will be another thing. One thing's for certain though...if they DO try it, it needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary.

gtodave · May 19, 2021

spoon059 said:
I agree with most of this. My point was that this ruling went have the major impact that some people here hope it will. It doesn't address police taking the guns, it just addresses the police needing a simple warrant to obtain them.

Many people, myself included, want erpo laws to go away. This case isn't doing it.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

I'm afraid I agree with you on this one. This won't have far-reaching results beyond this one case. We'll have to fight erpo's etc on a different battlefield (so to speak)

Occam · May 19, 2021

gtodave said:
Well, there's lots of people in power (including the president) who are in favor of it. Whether they have the balls or not to try it will be another thing. One thing's for certain though...if they DO try it, it needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary.

It's not about having the balls. It's about having the actual means to do it. Biden/Schumer/Pelosi don't have the means, because they don't have enough senators on board with gutting the filibuster, especially for the purpose of packing the court. More than enough D senators have said they want nothing to do with it and won't weaken, let alone destroy the filibuster.

With any luck, they'll have even less of a chance at it after the 2022 mid-terms. The Dems that are saying they won't stoop to that tactic are doing so in hopes that they can still retain control of both houses of congress by not plainly going over the cliff into no-checks-and-balances territory, which would get them slaughtered in 2022, and they know it. The not-insanely-leftist D legislators know that not grabbing pure simple majority power is how they might actually hold on to the power they have, rather than burn it in a bonfire next year.

Even with the filibuster alive, the skin-of-the-teeth D majority in the legislature still allows them to control the legislative agenda (the Rs can filibuster things the Ds introduce, but the Rs can't force the Ds to take up bills the Ds don't want), and that's better for them than getting creamed in 2022.

gtodave · May 19, 2021

Occam said:
It's not about having the balls. It's about having the actual means to do it.

My comment was more for future reference, in case they are ever in possession of the "means". It's next to impossible to do now, but imagine what we thought was impossible for congress to do 15-20 years ago that is done with regularity now.

pcfixer · May 30, 2021

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ns-may-be-challenged-under-the-4th-amendment/

Just found this... Hearing that Senator Feinstein recentently introduced an national ERPO. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ns-may-be-challenged-under-the-4th-amendment/
e

Alito concurred with Thomas and noted the focus on the Fourth Amendment means challenges to red flag laws may come before SCOTUS.

Alito wrote:

This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized.

He observed, “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.”

Giffords, a Gabby Giffords’ gun control group, reports that 19 states and Washington DC have red flag laws in the form of “extreme risk protection orders.”

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Handsome Engineer

Ultimate Member

Still learnin'

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics