Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2020, 06:23 AM #1
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,226
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,226
SCOTUS grant: Caniglia v Strom, "community caretaking" for warrantless home entry

A Friday surprise!
Nov 20 2020 Petition GRANTED.

SCOTUSBlog commentary on the grant:
Quote:
The two new cases that the court agreed to review both involve disputes over police conduct. The Fourth Amendment normally requires police to obtain a warrant for searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has carved out several exceptions to this general rule, including one for when police are serving a “community caretaking” function – activities that don’t have anything to do with fighting crime, but instead are focused on providing help. In Caniglia v. Strom, the justices on Friday agreed to decide whether the exception applies to the home.

The case arose after police officers went to the Cranston, Rhode Island, home of 68-year-old Edward Caniglia, when his wife requested a wellness check. After a local firefighter persuaded Caniglia to go to the hospital, police officers – believing that “Caniglia and others could be in danger” – entered the home and took Caniglia’s guns. Caniglia sued the city and police officers in federal court, arguing (among other things) that the police officers’ entry into his home and seizure of the guns without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled that the police officers’ actions were covered by the “community caretaking” exception, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld that decision.

Caniglia went to the Supreme Court in August, where he argued that the justices should take up his case because the lower courts are “deeply divided” on the question whether the “community caretaking” exception applies to the home. The lower court’s decision is also simply wrong, he added, because the Supreme Court intended the exception to apply only to cars.

The city and police officers countered that there is no conflict among the lower courts, which have looked at the “unique facts” of each case and “routinely” allow officers to enter homes without a warrant in “dire” circumstances. Moreover, they added, the Supreme Court did not limit the exception to cars, and the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the police from entering homes to defuse potentially dangerous situations.


Supreme Court docket

From the petition, the only mention of the 2A in the entire SCOTUS filing:
Quote:
Petitioner alleged, by way of § 1983 claims, that Defendants had violated his rights under the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 07:13 AM #2
KingClown KingClown is offline
SOmething Witty
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Deep Blue MD
Posts: 177
KingClown KingClown is offline
SOmething Witty
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Deep Blue MD
Posts: 177
Hopefully ACB and the rest of the Justices see this as nothing more than a gun grab. If police enter to render help they should not be searching or seizing anything. They way this reads it sounds like they were trying to use the red flag law without anyone reporting them. So are they now allowed to issue a Red Flag themselves.

For the right and for gun owners now is our hill. They are coming after our rights at an exponential rate.
KingClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 07:35 AM #3
Allen65 Allen65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 3,120
Allen65 Allen65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingClown View Post
Hopefully ACB and the rest of the Justices see this as nothing more than a gun grab. If police enter to render help they should not be searching or seizing anything. They way this reads it sounds like they were trying to use the red flag law without anyone reporting them. So are they now allowed to issue a Red Flag themselves.

For the right and for gun owners now is our hill. They are coming after our rights at an exponential rate.
It's not about gun grabbing. It's about core 4A issues, the fact that over the years lots of asterisks have been inked in to the BoR ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*")

*Except when..it's inconvenient for the Government and they're too lazy to obtain a warrant.

Maybe after this gets addressed, SCOTUS will have another look at civil seizures, too.
Allen65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 08:01 AM #4
Glaron's Avatar
Glaron Glaron is offline
Re-Education Gulag 13R
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,117
Glaron Glaron is offline
Re-Education Gulag 13R
Glaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,117
Really is not the best case.

Police became judge and jury in a marriage/divorce kerfufflee.

Their testimony seems to contradict both husband and wife.

Wasnt there. But the layout shows the wife called.. Left and They kept on going beyond the complaint. Community caretaking.
__________________
Private property is bad. I relish my Government 8x10 Condo.(Free!)
*** The new word for Communism is Equity. ***
If masks can't stop a fart smell? They wont stop a virus.
What else did they get wrong? Fear of living is not life.
Glaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 08:17 AM #5
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,226
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen65 View Post
It's not about gun grabbing. It's about core 4A issues, the fact that over the years lots of asterisks have been inked in to the BoR ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*")

*Except when..it's inconvenient for the Government and they're too lazy to obtain a warrant.

Maybe after this gets addressed, SCOTUS will have another look at civil seizures, too.
Exactly.
He was in a hospital getting help. The police certainly had time to get a warrant and his house wasn't going anywhere, they could have posted an officer to watch it.
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 08:41 AM #6
StantonCree's Avatar
StantonCree StantonCree is online now
Watch your beer
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,310
StantonCree StantonCree is online now
Watch your beer
StantonCree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
Exactly.
He was in a hospital getting help. The police certainly had time to get a warrant and his house wasn't going anywhere, they could have posted an officer to watch it.
I agree with this. As mentioned it, on face value, seems like a paperless red flag. I don’t see how this actually survives a 4A.

Warrantless should be used in exigency and i don’t see that from the brief excerpt I’ve read.


https://casetext.com/case/caniglia-v-strom

EDIT BELOW

Ehhhhh after reading the actual incident I’m not as mad about it. Went down a lot different then the OP excerpt and my assumptions.
__________________
one shot of whiskey for myself and one for my new friend
StantonCree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 08:56 AM #7
Matlack's Avatar
Matlack Matlack is offline
Scribe
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,315
Matlack Matlack is offline
Scribe
Matlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,315
The court needs to address the conflict of police, fire, ems have no duty to the public and they have a duty to the public. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This fits that perfectly as if they have no duty to the public then community caretaking doesn't exist.
Matlack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 09:12 AM #8
StantonCree's Avatar
StantonCree StantonCree is online now
Watch your beer
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,310
StantonCree StantonCree is online now
Watch your beer
StantonCree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matlack View Post
The court needs to address the conflict of police, fire, ems have no duty to the public and they have a duty to the public. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This fits that perfectly as if they have no duty to the public then community caretaking doesn't exist.
I think you might need to read Warren again. Warren deals with individual relationships and doesn’t fit here. At least not in my amateur opinion.

There was some Az case about reckless drivers killing people and the courts ruled cops have to try and protect the general public and not the individuals.

But this is all off topic
__________________
one shot of whiskey for myself and one for my new friend
StantonCree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2020, 10:19 AM #9
Rab1515's Avatar
Rab1515 Rab1515 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calvert
Posts: 1,948
Rab1515 Rab1515 is offline
Senior Member
Rab1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calvert
Posts: 1,948
I love how they claim to be police to get qualified immunity, and then say they are not police but community caretakers so they can dodge the 4th amendment. Well which is it? You want the benefit of qualified immunity? Then you get everything that comes with it, which means requiring a warrant.
__________________
MD, AZ CCW
Member: NRA, MSI
Designated Collector
Rab1515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2020, 07:57 AM #10
KingClown KingClown is offline
SOmething Witty
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Deep Blue MD
Posts: 177
KingClown KingClown is offline
SOmething Witty
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Deep Blue MD
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen65 View Post
It's not about gun grabbing. It's about core 4A issues, the fact that over the years lots of asterisks have been inked in to the BoR ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*")

*Except when..it's inconvenient for the Government and they're too lazy to obtain a warrant.

Maybe after this gets addressed, SCOTUS will have another look at civil seizures, too.
No one said 4A had nothing to do but lets be real here they knew there were guns there and they wanted to take them.

I believe warrants should be needed for everything and not given out like candy. I know SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect the public so Red Flag and Community Care goes against this.

But we all know those guns were the motivation. Biden isnt officially anything yet no matter what offices he makes up and the ATF are already starting to carry out his wants and police and Libs are going all out on gun grabbing now too. And its only gonna get worse.
KingClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service