Caniglia v Strom

[Schadrach]

There's a SCOTUS case ongoing (oral arguments were 3/24/21) regarding the 4th Amendment and whether police may enter a home without a warrant and seize weapons of a person perceived by an officer to be endangering their life or the lives of others.

Short version of events is a couple were having an argument, he handed her an unloaded gun and told her to "put him out of his misery." He left to "take a ride", when he returned they continued arguing and she left. The following day, she called the cops and requested a wellness check on him and an escort back home. They had him sent for a psych eval, which he agreed to allegedly on condition that they not confiscate his guns - once he was gone, they searched and seized his firearms, under the alleged belief he might pose a danger to himself or others at some point in the future. 5 months of them fighting with the police before the firearms were returned, and the case is now before SCOTUS.

There’s no place like home? - SCOTUSblog

The maxim "a man's house is his castle" is one of the oldest and most deeply rooted principles in Anglo-American jurisprudence. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that may test how much protection the Fourth Amendment truly provides the home. In Caniglia v. Strom, the

www.scotusblog.com

Docket for 20-157

www.supremecourt.gov

Caniglia v. Strom - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

<em>Caniglia v. Strom</em> Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in [Caniglia v. Strom], concerning Fourth Amendment rights and whether police may invoke the "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement when conducting a warrantless search of and seizure within a home. The case originated from an argument...

www.c-span.org

So, what do you lot think? Where exactly should the lines be drawn? When is warrantless search and seizure justified?

 

[Agema]

So, what do you lot think? Where exactly should the lines be drawn? When is warrantless search and seizure justified?

If the proper authorities have sufficient reason to believe a person might be a danger to themselves or others, they can deprive that person of nearly all their freedoms by locking them in a secure psychiatric facility.

Taking away their guns seems like small beans in comparison - although of course given there are different relevant laws, it could easily be that the more severe is permissible where the less severe is not.

 

[Avnger]

If the proper authorities have sufficient reason to believe a person might be a danger to themselves or others, they can deprive that person of nearly all their freedoms by locking them in a secure psychiatric facility.

Taking away their guns seems like small beans in comparison - although of course given there are different relevant laws, it could easily be that the more severe is permissible where the less severe is not.

As much as the cops love to screw shit up, they got it correct in this case. Until his mental state could be thoroughly evaluated and, if necessary, he underwent treatment, his right to own firearms is superseded by his right to life and the right to life of those around him.

 

[Schadrach]

As much as the cops love to screw shit up, they got it correct in this case. Until his mental state could be thoroughly evaluated and, if necessary, he underwent treatment,

They sent him for evaluation, which he agreed to (allegedly specifically on condition that they not confiscate his guns). Then while he was en route to be evaluated, searched his home and seized his guns without warrant. For reference, he was evaluated and not admitted or given treatment.

his right to own firearms is superseded by his right to life and the right to life of those around him.

So, if the police simply declare you to be a possible future danger that needs evaluation (which lets be clear is basically any time an officer feels like it), they should have the unrestricted right to enter your home, search and seize anything you have that might be dangerous or potentially used to cause harm? Wouldn't that basically eliminate the 4th Amendment in all but the most extreme cases?

Police already find ways to cheat around the 4th when and where they can get away with it. Letting them just declare someone a possible danger that needs evaluation to give them a free pass to arbitrary warrantless search and seizure seems...extreme?

A woman I used to date (specifically the witch I mentioned recently in another thread) used to work for CPS in an especially rural part of the state. It was apparently very common for the police in cases where they had suspicions but nothing concrete enough to legally act on involving people with children to call CPS, because CPS are mandated reporters of anything illegal they might see and refusing CPS is also conveniently grounds for police involvement. Literally why she went from CPS to a private firm contracted with the state to do in home adult education classes - she was tired of being used like that.

 

[Gordon_4]

It does not seem unreasonable to me that weapons be confiscated from someone going through a psychological evaluation due to the actions displayed here by this individual. If he’s cleared by the psychiatrist then he should have his property returned. If he’s deemed to be mentally ill then this is where shit gets complicated.

 

[Revnak]

This will be bad precedent if the cops win. Next dude will be a seized computer from someone whose views (or existence) are deemed dissident. Cops don’t solve problems like this, they usually just make them worse.

 

[Agema]

So, if the police simply declare you to be a possible future danger that needs evaluation (which lets be clear is basically any time an officer feels like it), they should have the unrestricted right to enter your home, search and seize anything you have that might be dangerous or potentially used to cause harm?

Hopefully not anything - but maybe the guns might be a good idea to impound until someone's cleared by a psychological evaluation.