Supreme Court Unanimously Rebuffs Biden Administration on Warrantless Searches for Handguns
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Supreme Court Unanimously Rebuffs Biden Administration on Warrantless Searches for Handguns
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments in a case from Rhode Island that police should be allowed to enter homes without a warrant to seize handguns.
The ruling in the case, Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157, came May 17. Oral arguments took place telephonically on March 24.
The case came before the high court as President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats pressed for aggressive new restrictions on Second Amendment gun ownership rights, including controversial “red flag” laws, which allow gun seizures from law-abiding gun owners with limited due process, in the wake of highly publicized deadly mass shootings in March at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket and at Atlanta-area spas.
Police generally cannot conduct searches of private property without consent or a warrant.
In Cady v. Dombrowski the Supreme Court held in 1973 that police may conduct warrantless searches related to “community caretaking functions,” but only for “vehicle accidents.” Since then, the principle has become “a catchall for a wide range of responsibilities that police officers must discharge aside from their criminal enforcement activities,” the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals stated in the Caniglia case.
The community caretaking doctrine holds that police don’t always operate as law enforcement officials investigating wrongdoing, but sometimes as caretakers to prevent harm in emergency situations.
Edward Caniglia has no criminal history and no record of violence. He had been married to his wife for 22 years when, on Aug. 20, 2015, they had a disagreement inside their Cranston, Rhode Island, home.
The argument escalated. He produced an unloaded gun and said, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?”
Worried he might be suicidal, his wife asked police to conduct a welfare check. The husband went to a local hospital briefly after police assured him they wouldn’t take his two handguns. After he left, they seized his guns without a warrant, telling the wife his life and others could be in danger if they left the guns in the home. The police refused to return the weapons and Caniglia sued, arguing the community caretaking exception should not apply inside “the home–the most protected of all private spaces.”
Writing the Supreme Court’s short, 4-page opinion in the case, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the Cady v. Dombrowski precedent, which he indicated applied to police “responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents.”
“The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these ‘caretaking’ duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home,” Thomas wrote.
“It does not,” he added.
Thomas wrote that the federal district court ruled in favor of the police and the 1st Circuit expanded on this, stating that police “often have noncriminal reasons to interact with motorists” on public highways. The appeals court “extrapolated” from the Cady ruling “a freestanding community-caretaking exception that applies to both cars and homes.”
The appeals court’s community caretaking rule “goes beyond anything this Court has recognized,” Thomas wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Stephen Breyer joined. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh filed separate concurring opinions.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
https://minuteman-militia.com/2021/05/17/supreme-court-unanimously-rebuffs-biden-administration-on-warrantless-searches-for-handguns/
The ruling in the case, Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157, came May 17. Oral arguments took place telephonically on March 24.
The case came before the high court as President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats pressed for aggressive new restrictions on Second Amendment gun ownership rights, including controversial “red flag” laws, which allow gun seizures from law-abiding gun owners with limited due process, in the wake of highly publicized deadly mass shootings in March at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket and at Atlanta-area spas.
Police generally cannot conduct searches of private property without consent or a warrant.
In Cady v. Dombrowski the Supreme Court held in 1973 that police may conduct warrantless searches related to “community caretaking functions,” but only for “vehicle accidents.” Since then, the principle has become “a catchall for a wide range of responsibilities that police officers must discharge aside from their criminal enforcement activities,” the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals stated in the Caniglia case.
The community caretaking doctrine holds that police don’t always operate as law enforcement officials investigating wrongdoing, but sometimes as caretakers to prevent harm in emergency situations.
Edward Caniglia has no criminal history and no record of violence. He had been married to his wife for 22 years when, on Aug. 20, 2015, they had a disagreement inside their Cranston, Rhode Island, home.
The argument escalated. He produced an unloaded gun and said, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?”
Worried he might be suicidal, his wife asked police to conduct a welfare check. The husband went to a local hospital briefly after police assured him they wouldn’t take his two handguns. After he left, they seized his guns without a warrant, telling the wife his life and others could be in danger if they left the guns in the home. The police refused to return the weapons and Caniglia sued, arguing the community caretaking exception should not apply inside “the home–the most protected of all private spaces.”
Writing the Supreme Court’s short, 4-page opinion in the case, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the Cady v. Dombrowski precedent, which he indicated applied to police “responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents.”
“The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these ‘caretaking’ duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home,” Thomas wrote.
“It does not,” he added.
Thomas wrote that the federal district court ruled in favor of the police and the 1st Circuit expanded on this, stating that police “often have noncriminal reasons to interact with motorists” on public highways. The appeals court “extrapolated” from the Cady ruling “a freestanding community-caretaking exception that applies to both cars and homes.”
The appeals court’s community caretaking rule “goes beyond anything this Court has recognized,” Thomas wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Stephen Breyer joined. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh filed separate concurring opinions.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
https://minuteman-militia.com/2021/05/17/supreme-court-unanimously-rebuffs-biden-administration-on-warrantless-searches-for-handguns/
Elizabeth Theus- Posts : 5592
Points : 11382
Reputation : 110
Join date : 2021-04-20
Age : 69
Location : Lansing, KS
2cent likes this post
Re: Supreme Court Unanimously Rebuffs Biden Administration on Warrantless Searches for Handguns
Well knock me down, and call me shorty. The SCOTUS unanimously comes to the proper conclusion. Even if for different reasons, maybe even without any coercion from outside forces.
2cent- Posts : 8532
Points : 10542
Reputation : 390
Join date : 2021-02-28
Elizabeth Theus likes this post
Re: Supreme Court Unanimously Rebuffs Biden Administration on Warrantless Searches for Handguns
2cent wrote:Well knock me down, and call me shorty. The SCOTUS unanimously comes to the proper conclusion. Even if for different reasons, maybe even without any coercion from outside forces.
Elizabeth Theus- Posts : 5592
Points : 11382
Reputation : 110
Join date : 2021-04-20
Age : 69
Location : Lansing, KS
2cent likes this post
Re: Supreme Court Unanimously Rebuffs Biden Administration on Warrantless Searches for Handguns
Biden is a dangerous man, not because he's smart but because he's witless -- like all democrats but particularly the 4 peanuts and the Shoo and Shekels bunch, largely a waste of time, money and effort. You pay for it anyway.
When a politician proposes to do something that even the least knowledgeable and inexperienced know is a waste of time and money, it's way past time to get rid of them.
When a politician proposes to do something that even the least knowledgeable and inexperienced know is a waste of time and money, it's way past time to get rid of them.
Lummy- Posts : 5864
Points : 9589
Reputation : 398
Join date : 2021-04-06
Location : USA
Similar topics
» Federal appeals court bars Biden administration from forcing Catholic groups to provide transgender care
» BREAKING: Biden Condemns Supreme Court Abortion Ruling, Says it Unleashes ‘Unconstitutional Chaos’
» Supreme Court coup.
» Biden's remarks after the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity Monday July 1, 2024
» Biden Admin Ask Supreme Court to Approve Cutting of Texas Border Razor Wire
» BREAKING: Biden Condemns Supreme Court Abortion Ruling, Says it Unleashes ‘Unconstitutional Chaos’
» Supreme Court coup.
» Biden's remarks after the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity Monday July 1, 2024
» Biden Admin Ask Supreme Court to Approve Cutting of Texas Border Razor Wire
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum