SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge SCOTUS 9-0 that a “community caretaking” exception didn't justify LEO warrantless search & seizure of guns from the home of a person believed suicidal
Main Page The Lounge SCOTUS 9-0 that a “community caretaking” exception didn't justify LEO warrantless search & seizure of guns from the home of a person believed suicidalGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Info Guru |
Link to ruling, opinion written by Justice Thomas: Caniglia v Strom https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...0pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | ||
|
| Thank you Very little  |
So what's the end result, will this change red flag laws... | |||
|
| Info Guru |
Here is the summary of the case:
I don't think this addresses red flag laws, I'm sure that's a whole other can of worms. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
Glorious SPAM! |
From what I understand the state will need to get a warrant. They (the state) were asking for permission to use the "caretaker" exception to the 4th amendment so they could go in your house and grab property without probable cause of a crime. This basically says no, you need a warrant to do that. | |||
|
Member |
Excellent! --------------------------------------- It's like my brain's a tree and you're those little cookie elves. | |||
|
| Glorious SPAM! |
Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Warrantless ‘Caretaking’ Firearm Searches The Supreme Court has unanimously struck down warrantless so-called “community caretaking” searches of homes for firearms in a decision handed down today. In Caniglia v. Strom, Rhode Island police responded to a wellness check request by a man’s wife and confiscated his firearms. The police hung the legality of their warrant-free search on the “community caretaking” exception that allows them to search a vehicle that they’ve impounded. But that exception has never been extended to homes. The plaintiff had to sue the police department to get his guns back. The BidenHarris administration argued for the extension of the exception to residences which would have been a dangerously broad expansion of law enforcement’s ability to search your property without ever going before a judge. Today, however, the Supreme Court signaled — in no uncertain terms — that they aren’t interested in poking a huge hole in the Fourth Amendment. Read More: TTAG | |||
|
Political Cynic |
That surprises me - especially Roberts and Kagan. | |||
|
Member |
They're not going to use what they have on Roberts unless he is the swing vote in THEIR favor. Harshest Dream, Reality | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
Keep that silly conspiracy crap out of this forum, please. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Did you read the opinion? It is unanimous and two or three pages long. The search of the home was not pursuant to any red flag laws and no guns were seized under any red flag law, so they were not implicated in this case in any way. If this surprises anyone as to Roberts, it is because you are just mad at him about Obamacare, or whatever. This is "on-brand" for him. He was in the majority on Heller, for example. It doesn't surprise me as to any of them, as this is good solid, 4th amendment jurisprudence which says to go into someone's house and search, you have to have a damn good reason. There was no warrant, there was no consent, and there was no exigent circumstance. The exceptions for searches of cars are not the same, because cars are not houses. The First Circuit's "community caretaking" rule was found to be bullshit. The left is no more in favor of allowing illegal searches than is the right. Kagan won't make a special "yeah, but we were looking for guns" exception. It is more likely that a law-and-order righty judge might bless such an act than the average lefty, although I am not sure we have any of those on the Supremes now. Alito wrote a concurrence to note some potential situations where things might (or might not be) different. He is issue-spotting, in other words. He suggested there may be some non-criminal-investigation entry into a house that may pass muster in the future, without (of course) deciding what that might be. Alito also mentioned that red-flag laws may be implicated in some other case, but not this one. So maybe Alito is a little more law-and-order. This decision is entirely unsurprising, although welcome news, of course. And because this is a short opinion, with short, non-technical reasoning it is readable by anyone. (The several concurrences are longer than the actual opinion, but are still short.) I urge everyone to read it. It gives you some insight into the justices' thinking and how they write opinions. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Member |
^^^^^^^^^^ Thank for taking the time to explain in simple terms. | |||
|
| Member |
Will do Harshest Dream, Reality | |||
|
| Member |
The only thing that surprises me is that this was 9-0. | |||
|
| Quirky Lurker |
It shouldn’t. This was a no brainer and the First DCA clearly went out on a limb. The clear error is evident by how short this opinion is. The community caretaking exception applies only in bery narrow circumstances not present in this case and the case relied on by the First is clearly distinguishes the proper use of the doctrine and the improper use, such as in a home. This was accepted by SCOTUS because it was a single issue limited only to the community caretaking doctrine in a case with zero potential criminal implications. There is simply nothing to see here. Officers can still seize guns from a home with consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances, consistent with every other Fourth Amendment case out there. | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
Jeeez. Three separate opinions to make clear what the Court was not saying, and did not say in the majority opinion anyway, for a 9-0 decision that was neatly dealt with in the just under four pages of the majority opinion in the first place. Talk about a bunch of nattering little old ladies with a bad case of cabin fever! | |||
|
Member |
A good decision. A case can be made for separating a crazy person from their weapons, but now without due process and an order of the court CMSGT USAF (Retired) Chief of Police (Retired) | |||
|
Member |
*Busted* I didn't read it. Thanks for redirecting my attention; I'll read it tonight.\  ____________________ “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:” | |||
|
Step by step walk the thousand mile road |
An Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPOs) (what “Red Flag Laws” create) continue as non-adversarial hearings where a petitioner need only expose that the defendant in some way makes the petitioner fear for their personal safety or the safety of another. The petitioner needs also to assert that the defendant owns one or more guns or rounds of ammunition. Then the magistrate or court can then issue an ERPO ordering the defendants guns and/or ammunition to be seized by the police. The defendant does not even need to be made aware of the hearing or the order. So, be clear: this decision in no way affects ERPOs. Nice is overrated "It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government." Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018 | |||
|
Member |
Perhaps, but given his absolutely ridiculous and inexcusable behavior of late on the cases you noted as well as others, its not hard to understand why people might second guess he'd vote against the constitution/law again. And Kagan, she simply stuck one of her stubby fingers in the air, determined there were eight votes going one way on this, and voted accordingly. The emptiest suit to sit on SCOTUS in a lifetime. Regardless of all that, it is encouraging to see a unanimous vote supporting the fourth amendment and rule of law. ----------------------------- Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter | |||
|
| Member |
It’s nice to see that both wings of the court can decide that some lower court and/ or state law was so ridiculous that the had to pimp slap it down. Would be nice to have the lower court or state legislature that pushed it that far get ridiculed. Especially the particular legislator that wrote a law so terrible and unconstitutional and all other lawmakers that voted for it, that it was kicked back 9-zip. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge SCOTUS 9-0 that a “community caretaking” exception didn't justify LEO warrantless search & seizure of guns from the home of a person believed suicidal
Main Page The Lounge SCOTUS 9-0 that a “community caretaking” exception didn't justify LEO warrantless search & seizure of guns from the home of a person believed suicidal© SIGforum 2025