SCOTUS ruled on Caniglia v. Strom
penguinman000 sends us the news that SCOTUS has found that “community caretaking” exception violates the Forth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of private property, and sets probable cause for search warrants.
SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of ‘Community Caretaking’
BY MADELEINE CARLISLE
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter and search a home without a warrant.
The “community caretaking” exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which 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.
Monday’s ruling, in the case Caniglia v. Strom, centered on whether that exception also justifies warrantless searches of homes. In a 9-0 ruling, the court decided that it does not.
While Cady recognized that police perform “many civil tasks” in modern society, the “recognition that these tasks exist” is not “an open-ended license to perform them anywhere,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,’” he continued.
As Justice Samuel Alito noted in his concurrence, Monday’s ruling does not apply to another Fourth Amendment exception known as the “exigent circumstances” exception, which allows police to enter homes without a warrant to help “an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union Foundation had joined the Cato Institute to file a joint brief urging the court to keep the community caretaking exception “confined to its historic vehicle-related origins” and reject a broader standard that “would give police free rein to enter the home without probable cause or a warrant.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court did just that
Rack one, or at least most of one, up for the good guys. Thanks, penn.
For the legal eagles on board: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Category: Guest Link, SCOTUS
Damn, I really gots to get my eyes checked. When I FIRST (ht 2…oh wait…never mind) read that headline I saw Caligula VS Strom. I thought the post was gonna be on a case of a former Roman Emperor against a former Racist Baby Daddy/Senator from South Caralacky. Which, when I think about it, Ol’ Strom Thurmond coulda been Caligula’s descendant.
It’s a small victory for the Good Guys, but we’ll take it.
Freedom and the Constitution win!
Now if they would address the civil forfeiture theft!
I do have to admit that asset forfeiture has proven to be one of my most potent arguments against new gun control laws… about the time someone says “no one would twist the new law to do THAT” I remind them that civil asset was originally to be used only against drug trade moneys – and to look at governments have used it for since then.
Civil forfeiture and qualified immunity both need to be addressed.
Thomas keeps looking for cases for both issues and can’t seem to find four other judges to vote to grant cert with him.
Colorado passed a bipartisan bill last year that effectively eliminates qualified immunity, and I thought there was a lawsuit about it going on, but I can’t seem to find that information right now:
https://www.cato.org/blog/colorado-passes-historic-bipartisan-policing-reforms-eliminate-qualified-immunity
As soon as they get rid of qualified immunity/the equivalent for judges/lawyers/politicians I would be on board getting rid of qualified immunity for cops.
There’s a better chance of my exes practicing monogamy than any of those clowns giving up their legal immunity.
Something no one is talking about with the jurisdictions where QI is removed is the inevitable increase in frivolous law suits. The localities are going to be footing the bill defending themselves from these suits or just paying out. Neither is a tenable solution.
That being said, cops losing QI isn’t the end of policing.
No offense, but judges/(state)lawyers/politicians do not have qualified immunity. They have sovereign immunity which is not quite the same thing as qualified immunity.
Sovereign immunity was once overturned by the Supreme Court and then the 11th Amendment was passed and so that decision went away.
I would be for some sort of limited qualified immunity in that there are cases that overturn laws and it seems unreasonable for cops to keep their eyes on all rulings. That being said, there are some wild cases out there where qualified immunity was granted because the facts of the case did not specifically line up with established rulings.
There was that one case in CA where cops allegedly stole coins from a shop and the 9th Circuit said the case could not proceed because there was no case law saying cops stealing from a business while serving a search warrant was illegal.
That’s laughable to think that cops can steal in certain situations because a court – not the legislature – has not ruled on the issue previously.
Yeah, Jessop v City of Fresno still has me scratching my head. The 9th circuit’s decision makes no sense to me.
My take away from that case is essentially the same as yours. They said theft is morally wrong but not illegal if it’s done in conjunction with a search warrant. WTF?
Theft is illegal.
Deprivation of rights under the color of law is illegal.
But it’s legal for cop to steal something if it’s covered under a search warrant?
And then SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Again, WTF?
Is there anyone in these parts that can explain it to me in dummy terms? I feel like I have to be missing something.
“theft is illegal” – apples and oranges here.
If there was, in fact, enough evidence to charge the cops with stealing, then they absolutely could have been charged criminally.
QI ONLY applies to civil cases.
QI is not about who was right or who was wrong, it is about whether a civil case even gets to the discovery stage or whether it gets thrown out in the pleading stage.
QI is about whether a cop has violated someone’s civil rights and you only get past QI if there is clearly established law that a civil rights violation has occurred.
Theft of property is generally covered under criminal law (larceny) or civil law (conversion), not civil rights law.
Jessop is one of those cases like the “McDonald’s Coffee Burn” case that critics of the legal system like to use to make the argument that the legal system is “broken.”
But in fact, if you actually READ the Jessop case (here’s a link: https://casetext.com/case/jessop-v-city-of-fresno-3 ) then you see that what is usually alleged – that officers stole coins and got away with it because of QI – is not what actually happened.
This is what happens, BTW, when you get your “news” from biased sources that have an axe to grind. It’s important to distinguish between what the Court really said and what Joe Schmoe said in his weekly rant on talk radio or on his blog.
What happened in Jessop was that an illegal gambling operation was raided by police executing a search warrant. The warrant, BTW, authorized them to seize any and all monies, cash or coins of any kind. That is specifically spelled out in the warrant. After the raid the police gave the illegal gamblers are form showing that police had seized $50k worth of money. The illegal gamblers then ALLEGED that there was another $130k in money and $150k in rare that was taken and not listed on the property inventory. I can’t emphasize this part enough: THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF THIS. Z E R O. No evidence that the supposedly stolen coins ever existed. No evidence that the cops kept any of the money they seized. The court in Jessop pointed out that the terms of the search warrant specifically authorized the police to seize all monies of any kind. So taking all of the coins and other monies was specifically what the warrant told them to do. And if the police subsequently stole some of the money? The court actually did address that: “”[I]f the act of taking possession and the indefinite retention of the property are themselves reasonable, the handling of the property while in the government’s custody is not itself of Fourth Amendment concern. . . . The loss, theft, or destruction of property so seized has not, to my knowledge ever been thought to state a Fourth Amendment claim[, and] missing property ha[s] long been redressable in tort by actions for . . . conversion.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 538-39 (1984) (O’Connor, concurring).” In reality, Jessop is a case where someone who was engaged in criminal activities made a baseless allegation against the police and tried to pursue it under Section 1983 Civil Rights law. If they thought they had a case, there is nothing that would have prevented them from suing the officers for conversion or even demanding that the DA prosecute them for theft – except that of course, that would also require them to prove their claim. So I’m not sure… Read more »
Martinjmpr- No argument from me that the plaintiffs in this case were criminals and likely throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick.
The head scratcher for me is this part of the court’s opinion “The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity.” (pg 2 last para).
That makes zero sense to me. I thought Scott V Harris set the precedent that QI cannot be applied when there is a material dispute of facts?
Seems to me that the Court was focusing on the “seizure” of the property, not the subsequent alleged theft.
The court held that act of seizing the property was not a violation of the 4th amendment because it was done pursuant to a warrant (which specifically authorized them to seize all monies.) Therefore, no Constitutional violation.
If, after a lawful seizure, the cops then illegally kept some of the seized goods, that is not a Constitutional violation, rather, it is either a crime (larceny) or a tort (conversion) or both, but it is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
So could it have been a 14th Amendment violation? I think you could make the argument that the purported theft could have been a 14th Amendment violation under the Due Process clause but it may be that the plaintiff’s in that case didn’t raise a due process issue so the Court didn’t address it.
That makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Some form of “Loser pays” seems to be the cure for frivolous lawsuits.
I am by turns appalled at the glitches in our system, yet amazed at the relatively benign overall output.
Collecting from the folks who will attempt to game the system is going to be difficult.
The other problem with “loser pays” is that it allows big, wealthy defendants to discourage legitimate lawsuits from poor plaintiffs by threatening them with financial ruin. That would undermine the whole purpose of the civil court process.
The Colorado Law doesn’t actually do anything other than stroke certain people a certain way. People have always been allowed to sue the police for civil rights violations under misconduct (and other times as well). I know several officers personally who have been sued, albeit unsuccessfully.
Qualified immunity protects officers EXCEPT in cases involving violations of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”.
Timbs V Indiana addressed some civil asset forfeiture aspects and it was a 9-0 slap down to Indiana’s existing practices.
It was a civil asset forfeiture but approached from the excessive fines clause which was interesting.
Basically Timbs was found guilty of something that was at most a 10,000 dollar fine. The state took his 40 thousand dollar vehicle to cover the fine, and Timbs ultimately was charged 1200. The state kept the vehicle and offered Timbs nothing back on the vehicle. He sued the state and won right up to the State Supreme Court…SCOTUS looked at it and overturned the State Supreme Court.
Using the 14th’s due process clause SCOTUS found that civil asset forfeiture in this case that exceeded the fine by a factor of 30 was applicable.
It’s not a definitive case, but a step in the right direction and indicates the SCOTUS judges are on the same page with this issue regardless of liberal/conservative.
Now, if the court would take such an inclination with the commerce clause.
It is important to note that this decision is for the specific facts of this case. The Court ruled that the police agreed not to seize the weapons if the man went to the hospital to be evaluated (he was released later in the day which shows his mental state of not being suicidal) that meant entering the home, searching and seizing the weapons was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Alito writes a very interesting concurrence in which he brings up the idea of so called “wellness checks” of the elderly in their homes. Can the police enter a home if the person was not heard from? (Caniglia’s lawyer argued that they could not without a warrant.) The Court left that example unresolved.
The other issue that is brought up by Alito are “red flag gun laws,” which many states are writing and implementing. Alito says this opinion doesn’t address those laws. That means that for now, red flag laws are legal.
The Thomas opinion is pretty clear. Absent a crime, exigent circumstances, or consent, the Fourth Amendment still is king of the hill.
Nine to zero.
Wow.
You don’t see that too often.
I find that about as believable as 306/232. Maybe playing nice after Chief Just-Us’s excited utterance.
How’s the DC ‘Not-a-Wall’ going?
That was my initial reaction. Decided to utilize my google fu and it turns out 9-0 decisions account for roughly 1/3 of the SOCTUS rulings.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/06/those-5-to-4-decisions-on-supreme-court-9-to-0-is-far-more-common/
Not sure what to think about that.
Generally speaking, SCOTUS is not REQUIRED to hear any case (yes, there are exceptions to that but they’re not relevant here.)
The plethora of 9-0 cases means that SCOTUS is choosing to hear cases about which there is a general consensus among the judges about what the ruling should be.
FWIW it takes 4 SCOTUS judges to agree to hear a case (grant certiorari.)
SCOTUS actually 1) hearing a case, and 2) getting the ruling right. Rare and out of character, of late.
And minor quibble AW1Ed, SOCTUS didn’t say community care taking was a no go. The clarified the source case for community care taking is limited to vehicles. It does not extend into the home.
So the Cady case (where cops searched an impounded vehicle) still stands. They refused to extend that case law into the home.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/433/
Caught that after I posted. Thanks for the clarification.