News|Law For the first time in over 10 years the United States Supreme Court heard a case in regards to firearms. The new case that was heard recently by the […]
For the first time in over 10 years the United States Supreme Court heard a case in regards to firearms. The new case that was heard recently by the highest court in the land dates back to 2015, Caniglia vs Strom. In this case the Cranston Police Department in Rhode Island seized Mr. Canigila’s firearms after a heated argument with his wife that ended with an implied suicide attempt. The case more focused on Mr. Canigila’s Fourth Amendment rights yet, it is also tied to his Second Amendment rights since its dealing with the seizure of a firearm from his residence. In the incident the police stated the used the community caretaking exemption to remove his guns from his house without his consent. The Supreme Court decided unanimously that the Cranston Police had no right to seize his firearms under the community caretaking law.
Below, is a summary from the Canigila vs Strom case from The Firearm Blog. As, well as the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case.
Summary Of Canigila vs Strom (TFB)
The incident occurred in August 2015, when the Caniglia’s had a heated argument. During the argument, Edward retrieved an unloaded handgun and (presumably loaded) magazine and put them on the kitchen table and asked his wife to shoot him “and get it over with”. Ultimately, Kim returned the gun to its spot and hid the magazine, then stayed at a hotel for the night, and in the morning, called a non-emergency line to law enforcement to accompany her to the house as she was worried about what she might find, though she stated that she did not fear for her own safety.
Edward admitted to the incident but denied any suicidal thoughts. In talking with the officers, Edward agreed to go by ambulance to a hospital for a mental evaluation and claims that the officers told him that they would not confiscate his guns if he went voluntarily. Officers deny making that promise, but Edward had made it clear he did not want his property seized. Once Edward was gone, Kim directed the officers to each of the two guns, their magazines and ammunition. The Caniglia’s claim that officers informed Kim that Edward consented to the seizure of the two guns and took them with approval from a supervisor.
Edward was not admitted as an inpatient and made attempts to retrieve his property, but the following month enlisted the help of a lawyer. In December 2015, he was finally able to retrieve his two guns. Edward filed a lawsuit against the officers and the City of Cranston for violating his Second and Fourth Amendment rights, as well as violations against several state statutes.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Canigila vs Strom
In a decision released on May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the seizure of firearms from the home without a warrant wouldn’t pass muster under the “community caretaking” exemption to the Fourth Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas issued the opinion of the court in Caniglia v. Strom; the following is a quote from that opinion.
Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles
or investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking” duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not.
Justice Thomas went on to explain the difference between the two cases:
What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much, and this Court has repeatedly “declined to expand the scope of exceptions to the warrant requirement to permit warrantless entry into the home.” Collins, 584 U. S., at _ (slip
op., at 8).
In Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, he took the time to address the looming question of “Red Flag” laws, and how this decision applies to those laws. For the time being, it was not specifically addressed in Caniglia’s case to the Supreme Court, and thus not completely ruled on, however, Caniglia’s case will no doubt be referenced if SCOTUS ever takes up a case against a Red Flag law. That portion of Justice Alito’s opinion follows:
- This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. 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. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§18125–18148 (West Cum. Supp. 2021); Fla. Stat. §790.401(4) (Cum. Supp. 2021); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, §131T (2021). They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.
What do you think about the decision handed down for the highest court in the land? Let us know in the comments below.
Thanks For Reading
If you enjoyed this post, hit that like button, share it a friend, and subscribe. If you have any suggestions, ideas, or comments. Please feel free to drop a comment. Be Humble. Train until only savagery remains and stay deadly ladies and gents.