SCOTUS Dips a Toe into 4th Amendment's Warrant Requirement to Decide Three Cases Last Term
It’s been a long haul through the last year and half for me, and loads of others, too. In addition to the pandemic lock-down, I’ve been away from work because of an extended medical disability. Now, over a year of lock-down and three surgeries in eight months later I am slowly working my way back to full strength. So, let’s start touching base again, OK?
The Supreme Court of the United States’ last term was certainly eventful. I didn’t much follow the high profile, politically charged cases. In fact, I pretty much avoided SCOTUS reports entirely. When I went to catch up on the Court, I was looking at those cases that have a lesser media profile but still affect how we do our jobs responding to gender-based violence. One such case is Edward A. Caniglia v. Robert R. Strom, et al. 593 U.S. ___ (May 17, 2021), a firearm and 4th Amendment case with a curious outcome.
IS THERE A "COMMUNITY CARETAKER" EXCEPTION? MAYBE.
The ruling in Caniglia is that rarest of beasts these days, a unanimous opinion (to say nothing about its brevity, coming in at four pages). But even in unanimity, this Court still showed fault lines as justices filed three separate concurring opinions, ranging in length from one paragraph (Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Breyer) to several pages longer than the majority opinion (Justice Cavanaugh), with one stuck between those two (Justice Alito).
The Court attempted to clarify whether there is a “community caretaker” exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement to be found in Cady v. Dombrowski, 431 U.S. 433 (1973). To recap, the Cady opinion permitted the warrantless search of a disabled vehicle involved in a crash, which it characterized as a non-criminal community care-taking function. Something, I guess, like rescuing a cat stuck in a tree. The question of the limits of that exception came up because the police in Rhode Island were called by his wife to do a welfare check on Mr. Caniglia.
The Caniglia’s had argued the night before. During the argument, Mr. Caniglia put one of his handguns on the dining room table and asked his wife to shoot him. She refused, preferring to leave the house and spend the night in a hotel.
The following morning when Mr. Caniglia wouldn’t answer his phone, his wife called the police and asked that they check on his welfare. When they arrived at the house, Mr. Caniglia met them on the porch and assured them he had no intention of killing himself. The police were not reassured and determined that he posed a risk to himself and others and called an ambulance. Mr. Caniglia eventually agreed to go in the ambulance but only after the police promised not to confiscate his firearms.
Once the ambulance left with Mr. Caniglia, the police set about searching his house for and seizing his firearms. The police were guided to the guns by his wife. They got her guidance only after they lied to her about Mr. Caniglia’s wishes, suggesting that he had agreed to the search.