I know we have members that follow many of SCOTUS cases. And, even if you do not normally this appears to be a case that the membership here will find important (and a bit disturbing). Anyone currently familiar with or following this case?

https://ballotpedia.org/Caniglia_v._Strom

Yes I have been following this off and on.

What is disturbing is that probably this will probably be the only time in my life that I agree with the ACLU.

From one of the articles that I read.

Cato now joins the ACLU and the American Conservative Union Foundation on a brief urging the Court to put an end to the expansion of the community caretaking standard’s application to the home.

"Community Caretaking" exception to the 4th Amendment? They didn't teach us that one in law class at the academy.

I don't remember learning about it in either of the two police academies I went to.

It wasn't till later I learned about it and started doing research on exception.

Hoping SCOTUS gets it right this time. The 4th Amendment means what it says and they should know that.

In my almost 31 years in LE I had used "Community Caretaking" once that I can specifically remember, there may have been a second but I can't specifically remember, it's use was that rare (at least in my department).

In a nutshell, call of female screaming and sounds of a fight. Upon arrival observe a male pounding a female in a parking lot. Detain him, see an open door and blood all over the interior. Did a quick walkthrough for other potential victims, found none and backed out. During trial defense attorney was attacking the 'search and subsequent evidence.' We won, there was no 'search or seizure' as I did not look anywhere for evidence (i.e. drawers, small areas, etc) just a quick walk through) and I collected no evidence, I was just looking for other victims. Judge ruled it was a proper use of the community caretaking exception and no violation of the 4th. Detectives later collected evidence under a proper search warrant based on their own observations through the open door and victim statement.

I'd have to agree with the defense of this case that the OP posted, there was no "Imminent and ongoing/current threat" IMHO, and a search warrant could have easily been applied for. Whether one would have been granted is another story, and takes us down that "red flag" worm hole.

Glad to hear that the LEO’s either don’t know about or rarely use this clause. However I fear that if this case doesn’t go “the right way” that will change rather rapidly (at least the training, no idea if individuals will actually use it).

Interesting to note, the prosecutor asked me why I didn't "search" further. I replied "I didn't have authority to do so without a search warrant." The defense attorney objected, and the Judge sustained his objection, stating it "Was his (Judges)to decide whether there was justification for a search or not." I know, crazy right?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tonydec,

In reading the link that the OP posted, as a non-lawyer my initial question is how does a case like this get to the Supreme Court if the parties disagree on the course of events and what was said during a verbal conversation? I would assume to make it to the Supreme Court a case would be more along the lines of "We both agree on what happened, we are just disagreeing on if it is legal or not".

I personally think USCoA 1 misinterpreted the SCOTUS “motor vehicle context” under Cady v. Dombrowski & wrongfully applied it in their decision in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by CEShooter:
In reading the link that the OP posted, as a non-lawyer my initial question is how does a case like this get to the Supreme Court if the parties disagree on the course of events and what was said during a verbal conversation? I would assume to make it to the Supreme Court a case would be more along the lines of "We both agree on what happened, we are just disagreeing on if it is legal or not".

The procedural posture of the case will have all of the facts taken in the light most favorable to the moving party before the S.Ct. Here, the plaintiff lost due to a pre-trial motion. On appeal from such a motion, even though at trial there would be disputed facts, the facts would be undisputed and all resolved in the favor of the plaintiff. This sets up the best fact pattern so the S.Ct can look at the best fact pattern and say that the law applies to those facts in the way that the Court rules. At a trial it is the jury that determines what facts to believe and on appeal from that, all disputed facts are taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (the party that won). That way the Court will determine if, under the best possible set of facts for the winning party, there was a mistake.