Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

1
Caniglia v. Strom
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... a-v-strom/

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant
Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone.

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

Critically, when police seized the guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger. Instead, the officers argued their actions were a form of “community caretaking,” a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Gun Case Tracker by FPC and 2Aupdates

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

6
sikacz wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:34 am
DougB1946 wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:56 pm "Common sense" has come to mean "we don't need no stinking Constitution. We'll do it my way".
Sure has. I’m not surprised at all on the administration’s position.
Let's not forget: THIS kind of attack was loudly promoted by Trump--seize first, worry about due process later were his very words.

I've warned again and again: Republicans CANNOT be trusted to protect our 2A RKBA rights, even less than Democrats, because they intend to use it SOLELY to disarm their enemies, but not their thugs who invaded the Capitol. And police, ALWAYS are in favor of seizing guns from Liberals and POC, but not from the far-right "militias" that many of them secretly support. We saw this last summer.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

8
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:28 am
sikacz wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:34 am
DougB1946 wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:56 pm "Common sense" has come to mean "we don't need no stinking Constitution. We'll do it my way".
Sure has. I’m not surprised at all on the administration’s position.
Let's not forget: THIS kind of attack was loudly promoted by Trump--seize first, worry about due process later were his very words.

I've warned again and again: Republicans CANNOT be trusted to protect our 2A RKBA rights, even less than Democrats, because they intend to use it SOLELY to disarm their enemies, but not their thugs who invaded the Capitol. And police, ALWAYS are in favor of seizing guns from Liberals and POC, but not from the far-right "militias" that many of them secretly support. We saw this last summer.
Just to be clear, my comment was not a statement of support for republicans. It was an observation about the administration.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

9
This case asks the United States Supreme Court to determine whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home. The community caretaking exception allows for the warrantless seizure of evidence that police find while fulfilling their community caretaker role, which is unrelated to the “detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence” of criminal activity. Petitioner Edward Caniglia argues that this exception applies only to vehicular searches and seizures, given that the Fourth Amendment affords significantly greater protection to the home over automobiles.

Respondents, including the City of Cranston, the police department, and city officials, counter that the community caretaking doctrine applies to the home based on the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness analysis, which permits warrantless searches and seizures when community safety interests outweigh privacy interests. The outcome of this case will affect the balance between privacy concerns and public safety concerns. The outcome will also affect police incentives in exercising their role as community caretakers.
Caniglia tried multiple times to retrieve the guns from the Cranston Police Department. In October 2015, Caniglia’s attorney requested the guns’ return, and the Cranston Police Department returned the guns that December. However, shortly before the police returned the guns, Caniglia filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the City of Cranston, the police department, and city officials (“the City”) for claims arising from the alleged unlawful warrantless search and seizure of Caniglia’s person and firearms. Caniglia alleged a myriad of violations, including a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the Fourth Amendment issue, reasoning that the officers’ actions fell within the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Caniglia appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court granted Caniglia certiorari on November 20, 2020.
In support of Caniglia, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a group of criminal procedure professors (“NACDL”) argue that expanding the community caretaking exception allows police officers to use this exception as a pretext for searching for illegal activity and contraband. The NACDL asserts that while the community caretaking exception is already used as a pretext for vehicular investigations, the risk of using the community caretaking exception as pretext for a search is even greater in the context of home entries because of the greater privacy interests. In fact, the NACDL notes that California extended the community care exception to the home but restricted the exception twenty years later because the risk of using the exception as a pretext for criminal investigations was too great. The NACDL also states that incentivizing these pretextual searches would negatively affect public perceptions of the police by making the public doubt the police’s role in community caretaking.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-157
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

10
DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:21 am Caniglia v. Strom
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... a-v-strom/

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant
Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone.

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

Critically, when police seized the guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger. Instead, the officers argued their actions were a form of “community caretaking,” a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Gun Case Tracker by FPC and 2Aupdates
Supporting warrantless confiscation, eh? Getting rid of due process? Then the authoritahs can start with confiscating all firearms protecting Joe Biden and his family.
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/ (reloading instruction)
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/ (podcast)
---------------------------------------
A true Liberal must back the Second Amendment 100%!

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

11
Supporting warrantless confiscation, eh? Getting rid of due process? Then the authoritahs can start with confiscating all firearms protecting Joe Biden and his family.
Better include trump the traitor with that great big brush...

hmm, lessee, let's play a game..

who said

'take their guns, worry about due process later'.

BTW, in spite of a couple of burps, RFL 'seem' to work well in my state.

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

12
F4FEver wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:11 am
Supporting warrantless confiscation, eh? Getting rid of due process? Then the authoritahs can start with confiscating all firearms protecting Joe Biden and his family.
Better include trump the traitor with that great big brush...

hmm, lessee, let's play a game..

who said

'take their guns, worry about due process later'.

BTW, in spite of a couple of burps, RFL 'seem' to work well in my state.
And WTF are we doing protecting Donnie Jr, his GF (older than his step-See You Next Time), his ex-, his 5 kids, Eric, Lara, their kids, Javanka, their kids, Tiffany....WASTING still vast amounts of OUR money on these parasites?
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

14
At least four justices believed that this case was important enough to grant cert and it's highly unlikely they did it just to affirm the lower court rulings. The Biden administration under acting DOJ officials asked leave to participate in oral argument which the court granted. They are saying it was an emergency therefore an exception to the 4th amendment and legal. Was it really that urgent that Caniglia couldn't have been taken to the station for questioning and a warrant obtained for the guns. SCOTUS has to come up with guiding principles that cover a variety of situations all across the US.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... States.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

15
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:59 am
F4FEver wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:11 am
Supporting warrantless confiscation, eh? Getting rid of due process? Then the authoritahs can start with confiscating all firearms protecting Joe Biden and his family.
Better include trump the traitor with that great big brush...

hmm, lessee, let's play a game..

who said

'take their guns, worry about due process later'.

BTW, in spite of a couple of burps, RFL 'seem' to work well in my state.
And WTF are we doing protecting Donnie Jr, his GF (older than his step-See You Next Time), his ex-, his 5 kids, Eric, Lara, their kids, Javanka, their kids, Tiffany....WASTING still vast amounts of OUR money on these parasites?
Indeed...ALL of them belong in a hospital's basement with a toe tag.

Re: Biden Administration sides with state in warrantless firearm confiscation SCOTUS case

17
Ruling issued today.
Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless
searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless
search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often
called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,”
such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413
U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally
different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440–
442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right
of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like
rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended
license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4.
953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS,
C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. ALITO, J.,
and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_8mjp.pdf

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron