Caniglia v. Strom

[Dennis in MA]

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!

This is mASS. You are in the mines of Maura.

I’m not surprised, I Sumer 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

Souter is known to have a shot glass full of liquor with him as he decides cases. It's called a Souter Shooter.

 

[Wrench75]

​

If you follow the conversation back you'll find that what you posted is precisely what we were disusing.

 

[JayR]

If you follow the conversation back you'll find that what you posted is precisely what we were disusing.

I replied in support of what you wrote.

 

[MaverickNH]

https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Torcivia-v.-Suffolk-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Where Red Flad laws lead to - warrantless search and seizure by "policy".

"This case presents the Court with an opportunity to reconsider the so-called “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Unlike other historically rooted, narrowly defined exceptions, “special needs” stems from this Court’s innovations in Fourth Amendment law, employing a relativistic bal- ancing test that privileges government interests, belit- tles serious intrusions, and thereby leaves the people’s right to be secure to “judges’ assessments of its useful- ness . . . ” New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, slip op. at 14 (June 23, 2022) (citation omitted). The decision below—upholding a warrantless, nonconsensual, nonemergency entry and seizure within the home—confirms the exception’s in- nate danger. That danger will continue to grow unless this Court intervenes…

On April 6, 2014, officers transported Wayne Torcivia from his home to a mental health facility fol- lowing an argument between Torcivia and his teenage daughter. Pet. App. 6a. At no point during that argu- ment did Torcivia’s daughter claim that she had been assaulted, or that a firearm had been used, displayed, or referenced in any way. Id. at 25a. After Torcivia had already departed for the facility, an officer learned that lawfully owned handguns were stored in the home. Id. at 10a. The officer entered the house and seized Torcivia’s handgun without a warrant, pursuant to a Suffolk County policy. Id. at 12a. The officer did not try to obtain a warrant in the more than 12 hours that Torcivia was under evaluation, id. at 10a–12a, nor did the government attempt to justify its search or seizure on the basis of exigent circumstances or con- sent, id. at 39a. The district court nevertheless found, sua sponte, that the search and seizure were justified under the special needs exception. Id. at 65a…

On appeal, the Second Circuit upheld the warrant- less search and seizure under the special needs excep- tion. Id. at 32a–33a. The court found that the officer’s entry and seizure were pursuant to a policy aimed at “preventing domestic violence and . . . suicide.” Id. at 24a. Because it deemed those goals distinct from a “general interest in crime control,” the court held that the special needs exception applied."

 

[Garys]

This will be very interesting.

 

[Hoover]

This will be very interesting.

2 Obama judges and a Clinton. A 3-0 decision which seems very on point to Caniglia and seems to ignore it completely. caniglia was a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. 8 can’t imagine SCOTUS doesn’t do a per curiam like caetano and vacate it without accepting it. It flies completely against what Caniglia

 

[Garys]

That would be better than a GVR and what they should have done with the four cases they GVRed on the last day of the term.

2 Obama judges and a Clinton. A 3-0 decision which seems very on point to Caniglia and seems to ignore it completely. caniglia was a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. 8 can’t imagine SCOTUS doesn’t do a per curiam like caetano and vacate it without accepting it. It flies completely against what Caniglia

 

[Hoover]

That would be better than a GVR and what they should have done with the four cases they GVRed on the last day of the term.

It would be better result wise but they haven’t heard AWB or mag cases before, this new case looks nearly identical to the Caniglia they just decided (and unanimously).