https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...enter-a-home-to-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/
Sorry if this has been posted.
Sorry if this has been posted.
- Thread starter BytorJr
- Start date
Who wants to bet thats SCOTUS fucks us on this one?
I don't know how they can even come into your home without a warrant. That is unless you're dumb enough to invite them in when they ask if they can come in.
Husband and wife had verbal domestic, the parties separated for the night, the wife tried to make contact with the husband...he didn’t answer the phone.
Police were asked by the wife to conduct a welfare check. Police entered the home after the husband didn’t answer the door. They took possession of the weapon. The weapon was not used in the verbal argument the night prior.
It was a bad seizure by the officer and the information provided. Unless something new comes out, my expectation is the entrance to the home was reasonable but taking the firearm was a 4th amendment violation.
Police were asked by the wife to conduct a welfare check. Police entered the home after the husband didn’t answer the door. They took possession of the weapon. The weapon was not used in the verbal argument the night prior.
It was a bad seizure by the officer and the information provided. Unless something new comes out, my expectation is the entrance to the home was reasonable but taking the firearm was a 4th amendment violation.
Either way not really a surprise at this point in time they want what you own with or without cause within of the law or not who did not know already they are willing to bend or break the law to get what they want total control and full power over everything they see from up high . It's like being surprised your cc company is supplying the government a list of who purchased what firearm related items in the past few months or years so they know where to start and what to look for you have to know they are going to sell you out .
That's a sticky situation. The cops are damned if they do, damned if they don't. They get the short end of the stick regardless. The guy did nothing wrong, they should leave the firearm. But if the guy commits suicide right after they leave, they're negligent too.
Fuck....
The seizure was based solely on the officer's assessment which consisted of asking him once if he was suicidal. To which he responded that he was not. That they didn't believe him was the support for the seizure.
The doc even sided against the police with his report, “In addition and more importantly, he had no significant acute risk for suicide”.
The lower courts took the side of the police inexplicably arguing that as he was suicidal that they had a duty to lie to the wife and seize the guns.
Even the American Association of Suicidology is filing an Amicus Curiae to defend the 2a here. They want nothing to do with being party to violations of the 1st and 4th amendment. I didn't see a single brief in support of the police actions here.
Here are the details and the full case docket for those interested:
For a detailed description of the events:
The seizure was based solely on the officer's assessment which consisted of asking him once if he was suicidal. To which he responded that he was not. That they didn't believe him was the support for the seizure.
The doc even sided against the police with his report, “In addition and more importantly, he had no significant acute risk for suicide”.
The lower courts took the side of the police inexplicably arguing that as he was suicidal that they had a duty to lie to the wife and seize the guns.
Even the American Association of Suicidology is filing an Amicus Curiae to defend the 2a here. They want nothing to do with being party to violations of the 1st and 4th amendment. I didn't see a single brief in support of the police actions here.
Here are the details and the full case docket for those interested:
Search
www.supremecourt.gov
For a detailed description of the events:
That's the problem.
How are they negligent? They asked, he answered. If he lied to them how is that now their problem?
We really need a wake-up call. People will do stupid stuff no matter if it's legal or not. It's like making suicide illegal. Doesn't matter much when you're dead.
The easiest way to avoid this problem is to get rid of that woman asap. 99% of marriage problems can be resolved with a divorce and 100% of men would be happier without a miserable woman ruining their lives.
Any woman that makes you as miserable as she was making that guy, deserves to be dumped.
Any woman that makes you as miserable as she was making that guy, deserves to be dumped.
This is why some people don't like cops. This is the shit I refused to do when I was a cop:
From the article:
"The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.
While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal court just below the Supreme Court in Caniglia’s jurisdiction) sided with the police. The court wrote: “At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.”
It is certainly true that the police need a good deal of discretion in carrying out their varied, complex, and sometimes dangerous duties. But they are also powerful agents of the government and their power is supposed to be restrained by the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect the home above all other places. And whatever one’s views on gun control may be, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to keep handguns in the home is at the core of the 2nd Amendment."
From the court documents in the link above
"
The ranking officer at the scene (Sergeant Barth) determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the plaintiff was imminently dangerous to himself and others. After expressing some uncertainty, the plaintiff agreed to be transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. The plaintiff claims that he only agreed to be transported because the officers told him that his firearms would not be confiscated if he assented to go to the hospital for an evaluation. But the record contains no evidence from any of the four officers who were present at the residence suggesting that such a promise was made.
At some point that morning, someone (the record is unclear as to whether the "someone" was Kim or the plaintiff) informed the officers that there was a second handgun on the premises. After the plaintiff departed by ambulance for the hospital, unaccompanied by any police officer, Sergeant Barth decided to seize these two firearms. A superior officer (Captain Henry) approved that decision by telephone. Accompanied by Kim, one or more of the officers entered the house and garage, seizing the two firearms, magazines for both guns, and ammunition. Kim directed the officers to each of the items seized. The parties dispute both whether Kim indicated that she wanted the guns removed and whether the officers secured her cooperation by telling her that her husband had consented to confiscation of the firearms. There is no dispute, though, that the officers understood that the firearms belonged to the plaintiff and that he objected to their seizure."
This has nothing to do with "red flag laws" or any of that. This case should be pretty clear in favor of Mr. Caniglia. His rights were violated and the police were wrong. For psychiatric evaluations, you need to place someone on an involuntary hold (Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150 in California) in order to take their firearms for safe keeping. It appears Mr. Caniglia went voluntarily, and not on any involuntary hold.
Community caretaking applies to things that would be a danger to the community....like seeing an abandoned backpack on a street corner and searching it for dangerous items a child could hurt themselves with, drugs, ID of the owner, etc... and other similar type scenarios.
The firearms in this case were under the care of the wife, and clearly she couldn't have given less fucks, because based on the information in the case, apparently she nags the fuck out of the husband to the point where he's so fed up with her, puts an unloaded gun on the table and asks her to shoot him.
From the article:
"The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.
While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal court just below the Supreme Court in Caniglia’s jurisdiction) sided with the police. The court wrote: “At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.”
It is certainly true that the police need a good deal of discretion in carrying out their varied, complex, and sometimes dangerous duties. But they are also powerful agents of the government and their power is supposed to be restrained by the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect the home above all other places. And whatever one’s views on gun control may be, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to keep handguns in the home is at the core of the 2nd Amendment."
From the court documents in the link above
"
The ranking officer at the scene (Sergeant Barth) determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the plaintiff was imminently dangerous to himself and others. After expressing some uncertainty, the plaintiff agreed to be transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. The plaintiff claims that he only agreed to be transported because the officers told him that his firearms would not be confiscated if he assented to go to the hospital for an evaluation. But the record contains no evidence from any of the four officers who were present at the residence suggesting that such a promise was made.
At some point that morning, someone (the record is unclear as to whether the "someone" was Kim or the plaintiff) informed the officers that there was a second handgun on the premises. After the plaintiff departed by ambulance for the hospital, unaccompanied by any police officer, Sergeant Barth decided to seize these two firearms. A superior officer (Captain Henry) approved that decision by telephone. Accompanied by Kim, one or more of the officers entered the house and garage, seizing the two firearms, magazines for both guns, and ammunition. Kim directed the officers to each of the items seized. The parties dispute both whether Kim indicated that she wanted the guns removed and whether the officers secured her cooperation by telling her that her husband had consented to confiscation of the firearms. There is no dispute, though, that the officers understood that the firearms belonged to the plaintiff and that he objected to their seizure."
This has nothing to do with "red flag laws" or any of that. This case should be pretty clear in favor of Mr. Caniglia. His rights were violated and the police were wrong. For psychiatric evaluations, you need to place someone on an involuntary hold (Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150 in California) in order to take their firearms for safe keeping. It appears Mr. Caniglia went voluntarily, and not on any involuntary hold.
Community caretaking applies to things that would be a danger to the community....like seeing an abandoned backpack on a street corner and searching it for dangerous items a child could hurt themselves with, drugs, ID of the owner, etc... and other similar type scenarios.
The firearms in this case were under the care of the wife, and clearly she couldn't have given less fucks, because based on the information in the case, apparently she nags the fuck out of the husband to the point where he's so fed up with her, puts an unloaded gun on the table and asks her to shoot him.
Last edited:
then the simple answer is to never allow cops into your life. Don't so stupid shit and they won't show up. If your wife calls them, have her leave with them. Ask them to leave the property. Submit to no searches. Tell them they are under no circumstances allowed into your home. Seriously, I'd make sure they paid if they did this to me. They lied and stole. Two crimes against humanity there.
I tell people all the time "don't ever talk to cops about anything, ever."
They're always like "Wouldn't you be nice and cooperate since you were a cop for so long?"
"Uh, hell to the no. I won't ever cooperate voluntarily because I was a cop and I know their sole goal is to investigate, detain, arrest, and use whatever I say against me because I don't know what they already know and have formulated. I won't resist, but I also won't say a word, and won't give consent for anything, ever."
Your job as a citizen is to NOT let the government or their agents voluntarily into your private life. Obviously of they have a search warrant or other exigent/emergent circumstances, then it is what it is. Like @Maxduty said, don't do shit to get to get the cops called (like pull out a gun, even jokingly, when arguing with your old lady).
The old saying goes, "Don't start nuthin, won't be nuthin."
Last edited:
So let me get this straight.
Its been ruled that police have absolutely NO requirement to actually protect us.
Now they want it ruled that you can bypass a Constitutional guideline under the guise of protecting the 'community'?
Are you fucking serious?
Its been ruled that police have absolutely NO requirement to actually protect us.
Now they want it ruled that you can bypass a Constitutional guideline under the guise of protecting the 'community'?
Are you fucking serious?
Reason #8789790898 that I never answer my door, like, ever.
Cops can't ask me bullshit questions to try and make bullshit assumptions if I dont even talk to them.
This is the correct answer
Dead serious. And they can legally lie to you to assist in the shitting on of the constitution.
At which time they "reasonably" assume you need assistance and then forcefully enter your residence.
Do you have a warrant? Then go away. I do not want or need your help. Have a nice day.
Here in Australia, if a person that a cop even just talks to on the street (not even arrested or in custody or anything) if that person dies within 24hrs of that interaction (for whatever reason) it's then classed as a "death in custody" and that poor copper has to go and please explain to an internal ethical review board
the dude at the center of this is Mr. Dumbfuck. his wife is Mrs. Dumbfuck. the police did what the police do, and now the Dumbfucks are paying stupid tax.
this reminds me of Mr. Dumbass, the dude that a few years back, decided he was going to make a video of him punishing his daughter by shooting her computer and then posting it online-for attention i assume. well he wanted it, and he got it. not quite the way he wanted it, though. i had zero sympathy for that fucking idiot, and i have VERY little for the Dumbfucks. in this day and age, any fucking idiot that brings a firearm into an even SLIGHTLY tense situation, is a fucking moron. the Dumbfucks’ only saving grace is they didnt record and post their stupidity on social media.
thanks to their bullshit, we have to deal with it in court and it has potential ramifications for the rest of us. take everyone of these dumbasses, the cops too, and sentence them all to 30 days for being dumbasses.
this reminds me of Mr. Dumbass, the dude that a few years back, decided he was going to make a video of him punishing his daughter by shooting her computer and then posting it online-for attention i assume. well he wanted it, and he got it. not quite the way he wanted it, though. i had zero sympathy for that fucking idiot, and i have VERY little for the Dumbfucks. in this day and age, any fucking idiot that brings a firearm into an even SLIGHTLY tense situation, is a fucking moron. the Dumbfucks’ only saving grace is they didnt record and post their stupidity on social media.
thanks to their bullshit, we have to deal with it in court and it has potential ramifications for the rest of us. take everyone of these dumbasses, the cops too, and sentence them all to 30 days for being dumbasses.
Is there an update you’d like to share?
The court ruled 9-0 that the community that, to quote Thomas' opinion: The question before the court is whether the 1973 case acknowledging "caretaking" duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not.
Because.
There would not have been an issue on the criminal side, however, the civil suit is what you have to worry about.
Especially nowadays, when they are removing qualified immunity from officers.
If there would have been a suicide, you can be damn sure the soon to be ex-wife would be crying on the stand, she and her husband were working things out they had nothing but a deep love for each other. The Officers did not do their due diligence, therefore they are responsible for his death.
Please deposit this much in my account.
Beat me to it.Glad to hear that the court reached an unanimous decision on this issue
The unfortunate part is that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to hear this case. This should have never been upheld at the district or circuit court. Those lower courts clearly overreached.
The case is not over though.
"We thus vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Presumably to consider, "whether anyone had consented to respondents’ [Police] actions; whether these actions were justified by “exigent circumstances”; or whether any state law permitted this kind of mental-health intervention."
Interestingly, the Justices also took an additional steps of clarifying the Cady ruling and pointed out that a vehicle parked outside of the home may be entitled to the same 4th amendment protections as being in the home itself.
Nah, that is always what they do. They told the lower court the search was unconstitutional, and told them to rule that way. The SC only ruled on the constitutionality of the question, not on the disposition of the case. Now the lower court has to do that. If they were to do otherwise, they'd get slapped down quickly.
Can someone explain what this has to do with the Biden Administration?
www.snipershide.com
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments to enter homes without a warrant to seize 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...
www.snipershide.com Nothing at all. Just dumb asses quoting shitty papers.Can someone explain what this has to do with the Biden Administration?
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments to enter homes without a warrant to seize 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...
Hey look at that, they got one right. Even if they went the scenic way around the real issue to get there, they still got there
So it took highest court in the land to keep hero’s from stealing private property? Holy fuck figured the hero’s would to busy keeping businesses open during peaceful protests to have time to violate all civil liberties and steal peoples shit. What anti cop asshole brought this case to the Supremes? Are we even allowed to talk about it cause you know hero’s feeling on gun boards.
That's my point.
There should be no civil suit against a LEO unless he actively broke a law.
We need to get this bullshit out of the courts, and get people to act like people again. This whole lawsuit lottery has been destroying tax payers for far too long.
The warrant is where I have a problem. These Red Flag laws give just about anyone with a vendetta good cause to swear out a warrant on you. The fact that you can't appear to answer to the warrant is what I have a problem with.
We had one Red Flag where the guy was shot and killed by the responding police. The reason for the warrant, his sister was mad at him because he didn't share some money that he came into. But she didn't say that, she said that he was acting strange and threatened her. The judge issued the warrant without anthing more than an unhinged woman coming to the police station.
We had one Red Flag where the guy was shot and killed by the responding police. The reason for the warrant, his sister was mad at him because he didn't share some money that he came into. But she didn't say that, she said that he was acting strange and threatened her. The judge issued the warrant without anthing more than an unhinged woman coming to the police station.
But we have laws to hold people responsible for making false Red Flag law claims so no one has to worry about that happening.
Yah right.
Yah right.
Caniglia v. Strom was on Joe Biden’s amicus briefs. If shit rolls down hill then it’s Joe Biden’s DOJ and so it’s “his administration trying to support qualified immunity and allowing to search and seize without a warrant. But mostly it was Biden supporting attorney generals (his DOJ) who have issued supporting statements to the government (prosecution side).Can someone explain what this has to do with the Biden Administration?
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments to enter homes without a warrant to seize 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...
If you think that’s annoying then:
1) don’t join the military. Shit rolls down hill like a heat seeking missile.
2) I had to listen to the allegations that Trump was a Russian spy for 2 years. No one cared what was fact or fiction then, or after.
So let’s go ahead and keep that same energy. Let’s not get too wrapped up in any “truths” now.
+1 on never playing the talking game with the police. You know the system is broken when one side is allowed to lie to you, but the other side can be imprisoned for doing the exact same thing. Rules for thee but not for me applies here.
The disconnect of responsibility is a result of the timeline. The case worked up through the legal system from December 2015 through August of 2020 before it was sent to the Supreme Court. It was argued by Marc DeSisto representing Rhode Island and Morgan L. Ratner for the Federal Government who joined the Office of Solicitor General in 2017. Neither of these lawyers were appointed during Biden's Administration.
I am fully on board with bearing responsibility for actions of subordinates. I would also agree with the sentiment that a 9-0 decision means everyone who supported this case from the date of incident to the final ruling was clearly wrong to do so. In this case, both administrations would share responsibility.
Instead of trying to blame an individual administration, I chalk this up to yet another example of a government trying to take more power by eroding protections granted to the citizens to check that power.
Can someone explain what this has to do with the Biden Administration?
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments to enter homes without a warrant to seize 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...
Biden's DOJ layers filed an amicus brief in short, stating that search and seizure in this case should be covered under the "community care" exemption (basically if they didn't conduct the search and seizure, something bad could happen) and if that argument failed, the officers are protected by qualified immunity. They submitted a huge brief and focused on the first issue, often making the case themselves why their argument was weak but essentially, "get it all on paper and we'll see what sticks." They've taken the same oath to support and defend the Constitution but this was an assault on the 4th and they wanted to have it stick because...guns.
Similar threads
