• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Caniglia v. Strom

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
4,463
Likes
2,553
Location
SoNH
  • In Caniglia v. Strom, the court ruled 9-0 that a “community caretaking” exception did not justify police officers’ warrantless search and seizure of guns from the home of a person believed to be suicidal.

Amazing! My only concern is SCOTUS says - 2nd Amendment case decision made, checked off for another decade.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,935
Likes
5,215
Location
My forest stronghold
What's interesting about this opinion is what's missing: a 'cuz gun' dissent.
Amazing! My only concern is SCOTUS says - 2nd Amendment case decision made, checked off for another decade.
I wasn't really a 2A case though. The legal world has been following Caniglia very closely and have barely mentioned the Second Amendment.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
26,536
Likes
18,430
Wow. 9-0. I guess all that conspiracy that the Illuminasties have the USSC locked up and Trump is either part of them (giggle) or fooled BY them in adding his 3 judges is sort of out the window. 9-0 is pretty telling.

A far cry from the court granting Eminent Domain in Kelo 16 years ago.
Meanwhile, in New London, the Fort Trumbull project has been a dismal failure. After spending close to $80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new construction whatsoever and the neighborhood is now a barren field. In 2009, Pfizer, the lynchpin of the disastrous economic development plan, announced that it was leaving New London for good, just as its tax breaks are set to expire.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
883
Likes
901
so, and how will that ruling prevent cops from stealing all the guns from the residences of those who dared to protect themselves from invasion with them, again? anyway, nice they ruled like that, but, what then?
We can speculate that an unanimous bitchslap from USSC will cause the 4 functioning brain cells (collectively held by all members) on the 1CA to galvanize sufficiently to reverse the district court ruling.

What that achieves in terms of repairing the harm or preventing future harms? Yeah, g’luck!
 

paul73

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
2,847
Likes
3,028
Location
MA
We can speculate that an unanimous bitchslap from USSC will cause the 4 functioning brain cells (collectively held by all members) on the 1CA to galvanize sufficiently to reverse the district court ruling.

What that achieves in terms of repairing the harm or preventing future harms? Yeah, g’luck!
i am just in a bitchy mood today, having a severe case of monday at work, sorry... :(
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
883
Likes
901
i am just in a bitchy mood today, having a severe case of monday at work, sorry... :(
Why are you apologizing? I’m just as bitchy, here in the slave mines of Moria, having a snark at the local court system ... thanks for the inspiration! 😁
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
13,754
Likes
14,878
I am absolutely f***ing astounded at the 9-0. Truly unbelievable.
Maybe someone whispered to the Court
that Red State police can generate
23 different pretexts before breakfast
for warrantless Community Caretaking raids on Donks.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
10,399
Likes
1,679
I’m not surprised, I assumed it would be at least an 8-1 decision. This wasn’t a hard case at all, what the cops did was clearly illegal.

of note, the circuit court of appeals decision was 3-0 and king asshat David Souter was on that panel. He has the ability to sit on appeals court cases as a retired SCOTUS justice and he does sit on a few cases a year on the 1ca. Shows how out of touch and what a loon he was on SCOTUS.

there was a similar community care case from San Jose I believe. The 9th circuit ruled similarly to what the 1sr circuit did. Hopefully those decision allows that case to restart


Dementia joes administration sided with Strom, I believe this was their first loss at SCOTUS of an argued case. Hope many more loses follow
 
Last edited:

Parker Schreiber

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
395
Likes
600
What's interesting about this opinion is what's missing: a 'cuz gun' dissent.

I wasn't really a 2A case though. The legal world has been following Caniglia very closely and have barely mentioned the Second Amendment.

While it wasn't a 2nd Amendment case, Alito did say this in his concurrence:

"Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues."
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
83   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,949
Likes
3,766
Location
Stoughton
What's interesting about this opinion is what's missing: a 'cuz gun' dissent.

I wasn't really a 2A case though. The legal world has been following Caniglia very closely and have barely mentioned the Second Amendment.

I note that this doesn't include Red Flag cases, although the possibility of SCOTUS taking one of those up in the future was mentioned.

Since it's a Fourth Amendment case, I wonder what other effects it will have on the "Community Caretaker" exception? If any.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
4,463
Likes
2,553
Location
SoNH

Bearing Arms raises some good points.

"In his concurrence agreeing that Caniglia’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, Justice Samuel Alito brought up the fact that the Court may one day hear a case dealing with another way that police are seizing firearms; red flag laws.

[Alito]: "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. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues."

"What, if anything, can we read into Alito’s comments? On the one hand, Alito’s reference to specific standards that must be be met before guns can be seized could be read to suggest that Alito might vote to uphold red flag laws if a case does come before the Supreme Court."
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,935
Likes
5,215
Location
My forest stronghold
[Alito]: "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. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues."

"What, if anything, can we read into Alito’s comments? On the one hand, Alito’s reference to specific standards that must be be met before guns can be seized could be read to suggest that Alito might vote to uphold red flag laws if a case does come before the Supreme Court."
I would read nothing into Alito's comments. Some of the justices, especially Alito, like to 'signal' about cases they might like to see or to limit expectation about how broadly the current opinion should be interpreted. Here, he's just saying: 'don't read too much into this just yet'.

Also, red flag laws are not unconstitutional per se. Their constitutionality will hinge on what due process is affored the subject of a red flag order and what standard (e.g. proponderance, clear and convicing, etc.) needs to be met before issuing one.
 

JayR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
46
Likes
249
Location
Rhode Island
I did not find mention of this case in a search. If this is a dup please delete.
I found this highly interesting in what affect it may have on red flags going forward.


There were a few threads SCOTUS Agrees to hear case on the Community Care Function Extending Into The Home (Illegal seizures)

This one however is the best of them. WE WON!!!!!
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
7,187
Likes
3,477
Location
Deep in the woods of SC

Bearing Arms raises some good point.s.

"In his concurrence agreeing that Caniglia’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, Justice Samuel Alito brought up the fact that the Court may one day hear a case dealing with another way that police are seizing firearms; red flag laws.

[Alito]: "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. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues."

"What, if anything, can we read into Alito’s comments? On the one hand, Alito’s reference to specific standards that must be be met before guns can be seized could be read to suggest that Alito might vote to uphold red flag laws if a case does come before the Supreme Court."

It could also be read as him telling the states to make sure they have their shit in order in regard to there being actual due process involved in the red flag laws. We'll find out eventually.
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
7,372
Likes
5,794
Location
Holliston, MA
It could also be read as him telling the states to make sure they have their shit in order in regard to there being actual due process involved in the red flag laws. We'll find out eventually.

Mostly it reads to me like: "We don't want to deal with that shit today, so we'll pass the buck until someone ponies up and brings us a case on it."

Pretty par for the course for them; trying to make a narrow ruling here. The thing that shocks me is that we didn't get a split decision. The "conservative" justices are typically pretty squishy on 4th amendment stuff.
 
Top Bottom