Supreme Court declines to broaden police authority to search homes

[DonViejo]

Source: NBC News


The court ruled that police in Rhode Island went too far when they searched for a gun in the home of man who had agreed to seek a mental health evaluation.

May 17, 2021, 12:13 PM EDT
By Pete Williams

The Supreme Court declined Monday to make it easier for the nation's police to enter private homes and conduct searches without a warrant for safety reasons.

The court ruled unanimously that police in Rhode Island went too far when they entered a home to search for a gun belonging to a man who had agreed to seek a mental health evaluation. The police said they were acting under one of their community caretaking functions that allows searches without a warrant.

But in ruling against the police, several of the justices made clear that they were not deciding that police cannot enter a home without a warrant to check on an older person who might need medical aid.

The case arose when Edward Caniglia of Cranston got into an argument with his wife, retrieved a handgun from the bedroom and put it on the dining room table. He asked her to shoot him "now and get it over with."

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-broaden-police-authority-search-homes-n1267592

[OneCrazyDiamond]

1. Mental illness excludes one from firearm ownership.

isn't gun seizure common in these situations?

[LiberatedUSA]

4. Do you really want people to avoid seeking help...

...for mental disorders out of fear of losing their guns?

Cause the second gun ownership is tied to your medical history, people will be lying to doctors and avoiding mental health evaluations.

Unless you want to make Americans all take a mandatory mental health evaluation per year or so. Doubt that would fly.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

5. I thought mental disorders were accepted grounds for loosing firearms.

Even the NRA is on board.

[multigraincracker]

6. Both Wayne and Ted, Officials and the leadership of the NRA

were excluded from military service for mental problems.

[LiberatedUSA]

7. I don't know how that would work with HIPPA laws.

Basically, in order to take firearms for mental health reasons, you need information protected by HIPPA laws. Court orders can certainly do that.

What I am saying is there needs to be mental illness in the restricted information the court gets to take the guns. If the information isn’t there in the first place (person is afraid of going to a doctor to get diagnosed out of fear of guns going bye bye), then that puts a dent in the gun taking process.

I guess we have that addressed in some states with Red Flag Laws that basically say a person is guilty until proven not crazy, but there is still a procedure to go through. You can’t just call up and say “take this person’s guns, I think they are nuts.” Well you can, but if they took guns based off of that alone, the lawsuits would be flying.

Also is the problem of a gunner not storing all their guns in one place. The police can’t be sure they have totally disarmed them. That is why when a person is deemed unfit for gun ownership, whether temporary or permanent, they need to have to sign a Federal Document saying they gave up all their guns with severe mandatory penalties for anyone caught lying. Like thinking they are clever hiding half their guns somewhere else in order to fool the cops who show up at their home to disarm them.

Mandatory time if caught per gun and per bullet. That will help take care of those “clever” gunners.

[Mr.Bill]

22. It might surprise a lot of people

but your medical records can be subpoened by a number of different authorities. A grand Jury, for instance. I have first hand experience with this.

[Eugene]

12. The key standards are "adjudicated" and/or "committed".

Not a lawyer, but... Federal law says adjudicated to be "mentally defective" or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

State codes use different language (mentally incompetent, etc.)

[NutmegYankee]

20. NO. It's limited to a specific circumstance where someone cannot care for themselves.

Or they pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. All of this must be determined by a judge.

[Amishman]

9. it is, with warrants and due process

In this case the police did not get any authorization, and simply did it on their own with the claim that they could do it because it was for the good of the community.

This is a good ruling - I really don't think we want law enforcement being able to search your home whenever they want as long as they can make the claim that it might be for the good of the public. This is why it was a 9-0 ruling.

[sarisataka]

10. The ruling isn't about guns

But about search and seizure under false pretenses.

[Chainfire]

16. You are not quite correct.

Being committed against your will may prevent you from legally buying a firearm from an FFL (Federal Firearms License, holder) dealer, being adjudicated as mentally ill precludes you from buying a firearm. I am not sure if either case revokes your right to own a firearm.

When someone is arrested, even if it is obvious that he or she is batshit crazy, they have not been adjudicated. Being treated for mental illness does not preclude someone from buying a firearm from an FFL. In any case, no one's home should be searched for anything without a search warrant or a clear and present emergency. If they removed the man from his home, then there was certainly no emergency with him gone. If they didn't remove him then they did not think he was a danger, and they had no right to search.

When people buy firearms from a licensed dealer they have to fill out the following form; you can gather from it what prevents someone from buying. Everyone who has purchased more than one firearm knows that the questions are answered; first question yes, all other questions, no.

Keep in mind, that if you buy a firearm from a non-FFL, a private sell, which is legal in most places, you are not required to do any paperwork.

Here is from ATF 4473; application to purchase a firearm from a FFL dealer:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nh/page/file/1245526/download

[cstanleytech]

18. Qualifies one to become the Republican nominee for the office of President though.

[asiliveandbreathe]

2. The same should apply to the body of women...n/t

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. Great big +1!

[Demovictory9]

11. ..

[PoliticAverse]

19. Yes, the police should definately need a search warrant before searching a woman's body. n/t

[sarisataka]

8. Good

The 4th Amendment has been taking a beating the last few decades.

[AllaN01Bear]

13. thats why rbg kept saying ,"quit coddeling the police".

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Yeah but they'll search your cavities

how invasive is that?

[AllaN01Bear]

15. it is spelt out that peace officers need a search warrent . period.

[AZLD4Candidate]

17. While I am for gun control completely, I am against police fishing expeditions

BTW, police shouldn't be checking on people who might need medical aid. Social workers and EMTs should.

[The Mouth]

21. If they have the sufficent evidence, get a warrant

If they don't, they can fuck off.

[Jason1961]

23. While I'm glad the court is finally protecting the 4A

I still would like to see less guns on the streets

I think we're approaching 'Red Flag Laws' all wrong in the first place and this ruling should help us correct that

You should have to undergo regular mental health checkups to own a firearm period

I wish this Administration would actually do something meaningful to reduce the amount of guns out there. For the first time in ages I think Americans are fed up and are ready to ban assault weapons and possibly even handguns and we just happen to have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency...what are we waiting for?!?!?!