4th Amendment Firearm Case

[ridleyman]

Supreme Court Docket: Interesting case involving the 4th Amendment, and whether or not your home is sacred vis-a-vis seizing firearms, or other property I suppose, sans consent or a warrant.


Caniglia v. Strom

PETITIONER
Edward A. Caniglia
RESPONDENT
Robert F. Strom, et al.
DOCKET NO.
20-157
DECIDED BY
Case pending
LOWER COURT
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
CITATION
Citation pending
GRANTED
Nov 20, 2020

Facts of the case
Edward Canaglia and his wife Kim got into a heated argument, during which Canaglia displayed a gun and told Kim something to the effect of “shoot me now.” Fearing for her husband’s state of mind, Kim decided to vacate the premises for the night. The next morning, she asked an officer from the Cranston Police Department to accompany her back to the house because she was worried that her husband might have committed suicide or otherwise harmed himself.
Kim and several police officers went to the house, and while the encounter was non-confrontational, the ranking officer on the scene determined that Canaglia was imminently dangerous to himself and others and asked him to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation, which Canaglia agreed to. While Canaglia was at the hospital, the ranking officer (with telephone approval from a superior officer) seized two of Canaglia’s guns, despite knowing that Canaglia did not consent to their seizure.
Caniglia was evaluated but not admitted as an inpatient. In October of 2015, after several unsuccessful attempts to retrieve his firearms from the police, Caniglia’s attorney formally requested their return, and they were returned in December. Subsequently he filed a lawsuit under Section 1983 alleging the seizure of his firearms constituted a violation of his rights under the Second and Fourth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Caniglia appealed. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized “community caretaking” as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in the context of a vehicle search, whether that concept applies in the context of a private home was a matter of first impression within the First Circuit. The appellate court held that the doctrine does apply in the context of a private home and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Question
Does the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extend to the home?

Cite this page

• APA
• Bluebook
• Chicago
• MLA

"Caniglia v. Strom." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-157. Accessed 5 Dec. 2020.

 

[Dadstoys]

My first question to the officer if i was the guys lawyer (And i'm not any kind of lawyer) would be "Did you remove every other item from the house with which my client could harm himself with ?"

 

[Spartan65]

Don’t let the police in the house without a warrant. And don’t even speak to a police officer without a lawyer. Sad for it to be that bad but it is in any liberal state.

 

[AHM]

Caniglia v. Strom

Dup of a dup.

 

[ridleyman]

Dup of a dup.

Granted 11-20-2020

 

[Broc]

Don’t let the police in the house without a warrant. And don’t even speak to a police officer without a lawyer. Sad for it to be that bad but it is in any liberal state.

I was going to post this, but then I thought ...

In this situation, the wife is inviting the cops in. So, what happens when one person in the relationship doesn't want to allow them in the house, but the other person wants them in the house?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I was going to post this, but then I thought ...

In this situation, the wife is inviting the cops in. So, what happens when one person in the relationship doesn't want to allow them in the house, but the other person wants them in the house?

I have a legal notice on my safe that states that no other party has permission to grant access; that any power of attorney in place is specifically revoked for the purpose of entry to the safe; and that opening of the safe by another party under police order shall not be deemed consent by the owner of the safe and contents which contains no shared marital property.

No, it won't protect against a vindictive wife taking the notice down, nor will it prevent the police from doing what they are going to do ... but a photo of the notice on the safe door will go a long way towards undermining standard argument #1 - "Consent was given". It is also useful to have something like this in place if other parties with access are the "the authorities are here to help, of course I will do whatever they ask" type of people.

I am also aware of a case where there is a credible allegation that the PD used a ruse "your husband gave consent" to get a wife to grant access in the absent of her husband.

 

[AHM]

In this situation, the wife is inviting the cops in. So, what happens when one person in the relationship doesn't want to allow them in the house, but the other person wants them in the house?

NOLO: Can the Police Search Your Place If Your Roommate Consents?

Wherein they claim there's actual SCOTUS nuance on that.
Even meta-nuance when there's a romantic relationship involved...

 

[ridleyman]

And if the protections are given by SCOTUS, will that mean that red flag laws will be nullified unless a judge issues a warrant. Perhaps the cops' hands can be tied for immediate and/or frivolous confiscations. Let's hope.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

And if the protections are given by SCOTUS, will that mean that red flag laws will be nullified unless a judge issues a warrant.

Since Red Flag orders are already issued by a judge, I rather doubt the decision in this case will address that issue. I predict a reversal on narrow grounds; the police here had ample time to get a judicial order, so exigent circumstances didn’t exist.

 

[MaverickNH]

I’m sure police will have Qualified Immunity individually for all the usual reasons. Caniglia will spend $100k+ getting his records expunged and cases sealed but Google will carry it forever.

The real need is that the standard of duty of Community Care police generally have in public spaces not be extended to private spaces - your home and castle.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Supreme Court Docket: Interesting case involving the 4th Amendment, and whether or not your home is sacred vis-a-vis seizing firearms, or other property I suppose, sans consent or a warrant.


Caniglia v. Strom

PETITIONER
Edward A. Caniglia
RESPONDENT
Robert F. Strom, et al.
DOCKET NO.
20-157
DECIDED BY
Case pending
LOWER COURT
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
CITATION
Citation pending
GRANTED
Nov 20, 2020

Facts of the case
Edward Canaglia and his wife Kim got into a heated argument, during which Canaglia displayed a gun and told Kim something to the effect of “shoot me now.” Fearing for her husband’s state of mind, Kim decided to vacate the premises for the night. The next morning, she asked an officer from the Cranston Police Department to accompany her back to the house because she was worried that her husband might have committed suicide or otherwise harmed himself.
Kim and several police officers went to the house, and while the encounter was non-confrontational, the ranking officer on the scene determined that Canaglia was imminently dangerous to himself and others and asked him to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation, which Canaglia agreed to. While Canaglia was at the hospital, the ranking officer (with telephone approval from a superior officer) seized two of Canaglia’s guns, despite knowing that Canaglia did not consent to their seizure.
Caniglia was evaluated but not admitted as an inpatient. In October of 2015, after several unsuccessful attempts to retrieve his firearms from the police, Caniglia’s attorney formally requested their return, and they were returned in December. Subsequently he filed a lawsuit under Section 1983 alleging the seizure of his firearms constituted a violation of his rights under the Second and Fourth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Caniglia appealed. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized “community caretaking” as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in the context of a vehicle search, whether that concept applies in the context of a private home was a matter of first impression within the First Circuit. The appellate court held that the doctrine does apply in the context of a private home and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Question
Does the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extend to the home?

Cite this page

• APA
• Bluebook
• Chicago
• MLA

"Caniglia v. Strom." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-157. Accessed 5 Dec. 2020.

There should be no exception to any Amendment/constitution... It is not the job of the government to protect me, that is up to me ! Period

 

[mikeyp]

Update

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant

The Supreme Court is going to decide whether police can go into a person's home without a warrant in order to seize his guns.

www.forbes.com

The 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer, or any other government official, can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime.

There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise.

However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.

Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.

Also, all three exceptions allow warrantless searches so long as the police officer acted “reasonably”. That is one of the easiest constitutional standards to meet and is a significantly lower standard than “probable cause”, which is required for a warrant. As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional.

There is a vigorous debate about whether the community care exception can apply to searches of a person’s home as well as of their car. Vehicles have always had less 4th Amendment protection than homes, which are considered a person’s most private sphere. Federal courts have been divided on this question and the Supreme Court has not ruled on it until now.

The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal court just below the Supreme Court in Caniglia’s jurisdiction) sided with the police. The court wrote: “At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.”

It is certainly true that the police need a good deal of discretion in carrying out their varied, complex, and sometimes dangerous duties. But they are also powerful agents of the government and their power is supposed to be restrained by the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect the home above all other places. And whatever one’s views on gun control may be, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to keep handguns in the home is at the core of the 2nd Amendment.

Unlike the “exigent circumstances” and “emergency aid” exceptions, the community caretaking exception is not limited to circumstances where there is no time to apply for a warrant. And the question of what sort of caretaking falls under this exception is extremely vague. Will the police be able to use it to, for example, conduct warrantless searches of political protesters’ homes to make sure they aren’t planning on violent behavior at their next political rally? The Supreme Court is going to take a very close look at this case and there is a good chance that they will overrule the lower court’s decision.