Neon Nettle
© 2021 Neon Nettle

Subscribe to our mailing list

Advertise Contact About Us Our Writers T&C's Privacy Support Us © 2021 Neon Nettle All Rights Reserved.

Supreme Court: Seizing Firearms Is Illegal & Violates Fourth Amendment Rights

SCOTUS unanimously rules that police illegally seized Edward Caniglia's guns

 on 18th May 2021 @ 3.00pm
justice clarence thomas said police violate citizens  4th amendment rights if they enter their home and seize firearms © press
Justice Clarence Thomas said police violate citizens' 4th Amendment rights if they enter their home and seize firearms

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is an illegal violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to enter a person's home and seize their firearms.

On Monday, the SCOTUS unanimously ruled in favor of a Rhode Island man, whose guns were confiscated by police during a warrantless search of his home.

The SCOTUS decision overturns a previous 1st Circuit Court ruling that said police officers in the case were acting within the law when confiscating the man’s firearms.

The case revolves around the police response to a domestic violence call in 2015.

When police arrived on the scene, Edward Caniglia’s wife told officers she believed her husband was suicidal.

Kim Caniglia told the Cranston, Rhode Island, police that Edward had brought out a handgun, put it on the table, and instructed his wife to “shoot [him] and get it over with.”

scotus ruled it is a violation of the 4th amendment for police to enter a home and confiscate guns © press
SCOTUS ruled it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for police to enter a home and confiscate guns

She ended up leaving for the night but had police conduct a welfare check after she failed to reach him, court documents explain.

When police arrived, Caniglia was sitting on the porch.

He agreed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation under the condition that his firearms would not be seized.

He was taken to a nearby hospital for evaluation, at which point police entered his home and confiscated two of his firearms.

Caniglia’s firearms were confiscated without a warrant because he was deemed a threat to himself and others, police said.

Caniglia sued, saying his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

Both the federal court and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals stated the police were well within their rights.

They cited the “community caretaking exception,” which was established in the Cady v Dombrowski case.

In that case, “an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled at the time that police can conduct such warrantless searches if they are performing ‘community caretaking functions’ in a ‘reasonable’ manner,” TIME reported.

According to the Supreme Court, the Cady case is irrelevant to the Caniglia case and “is not an open-ended license to perform [the community caretaking functions] anywhere,” as Justice Clarence Thomas explained the Court’s view in the opinion:

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.

But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed.

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.” 

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.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Conservative Union (ACU), and the Cato Institute filed a joint amicus curiae brief in the case, arguing against the Cady application in the case.

"The Fourth Amendment does not permit such a freewheeling balancing inquiry when it comes to searches of homes,” the joint brief explained.

"… Given the capacious array of activities that could be called 'community caretaking,' it is hardly surprising that courts have relied on it to uphold warrantless entries based on a wide variety of police actions.”

the supreme court ruled in favor of edward caniglia  whose firearms were seized by police © press
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edward Caniglia, whose firearms were seized by police

Other organizations that filed amicus curiae briefs include:

  • Institute for Justice
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
  • Firearms Police Coalition
  • American Association of Suicidology
  • The Rutherford Institute
  • Gun Owners of America
  • Second Amendment Foundation
  • Pacific Legal Foundation
  • Constitutional Accountability Center

[RELATED] Joe Biden: 2nd Amendment Doesn't Say Americans are 'Entitled' to Own Guns

Share this post:
Neon Nettle telegram

Facebook is heavily censoring information from independent sources.

To bypass internet censorship, connect with us directly by enabling our notifications (using the red subscription bell in the bottom right corner) or by subscribing to our free daily newsletter.

Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox for free every day by signing up below.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe to our mailing list

Follow Neon Nettle


PREV
BOOKMARK US
NEXT