us supreme court building, washington dc, gov
Photo by MarkThomas on Pixabay

Supreme Court Strikes Down Warrantless Gun Seizure

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday police violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered a Rhode Island man’s home and seized his guns without a warrant.

The Court ruled police in Cranston, Rhode Island, violated Edward Caniglia’s rights when they took his guns and ammunition in 2015 after an argument with his wife caused her to become concerned about his mental health. Caniglia was taken for a psychiatric evaluation but not held after telling his wife to shoot him to end their fighting. He claimed in court he only agreed to do the evaluation if the police did not seize his guns, but police entered his home and took them anyway despite not having a warrant to do so.

“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,'” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court.

The case further defines the limits of what police can do without first obtaining a warrant. The First Circuit had upheld the search and seizure under a “community caretaking” exception created by the Court regarding searches of impounded or abandoned vehicles. Thomas said that exception did not extend to a person’s home.

“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,” he said.

Caniglia’s guns were eventually returned to him in December 2020.

The case did not involve the use of extreme risk protection orders or so-called Red Flag laws, which allow police to seize firearms from those presenting signs they may be a threat to themselves or others. Rhode Island did not pass its “Red Flag” law until three years after Caniglia’s guns were seized. However, more than a dozen states have passed “Red Flag” laws in the past several years, and the ruling may provide some insight into how the Court may approach future cases challenging them.

Justice Samuel Alito said the details of the case might closely match a potential “Red Flag” case.

“This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some states are now enacting,” he said in a concurrence. “These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized.”

He predicted future Fourth Amendment challenges might be brought against “Red Flag” laws but specifically stated the Court’s opinion in Caniglia “does not address those issues.”

“In sum, the Court properly rejects the broad ‘community caretaking’ theory on which the decision below was based,” Alito said. “The Court’s decision goes no further, and on that understanding, I join the opinion in full.”

Join For Sober Serious Firearms Reporting & Analysis

Sign up for journalism trusted by staff in Congress, at every major media outlet, and every major gun group in the country.

Free Weekly Newsletter

Get the most important gun news

Reloaders
$10/month
  • Weekly News & Analysis Newsletters
  • Access to Exclusive Posts
  • Commenting and Forum Access
  • Exclusive Question & Answer Sessions
Buy Now
Reloaders
$100/year
  • Two Months Free
  • Weekly News & Analysis Newsletter
  • Access to Exclusive Posts
  • Commenting and Forum Access
  • Exclusive Question & Answer Sessions
Buy Now
Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019

Share

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on email
Email
Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019

Comments From Reload Members

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Coster
Mike Coster
26 days ago

Good.

Menu