Get 40% Off
🤯 This Tech Portfolio is up 29% YTD! Join Now to Get April’s Top PicksGet The Picks – Just 99 USD

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant

Published 05/17/2021, 10:42 AM
Updated 05/17/2021, 11:45 AM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The United States Supreme Court Building's facade is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The United States Supreme Court Building's facade is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to make it easier for police to enter a home without a warrant for reasons of health or public safety, throwing out a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Rhode Island man after officers entered his home and confiscated his guns.

The 9-0 ruling directed the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider Edward Caniglia's lawsuit accusing police of violating his constitutional rights by bringing him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation and taking away his guns without a warrant after a 2015 argument with his wife.

Lower courts had ruled that police in the Rhode Island city of Cranston did not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case centered on a legal doctrine that gives officers leeway to engage in "community caretaking" to ensure public safety. In its ruling, the Supreme Court, which has previously applied this doctrine to vehicles, said it does not apply to the home as well.

"What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

In ruling against Caniglia, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that even if his case did not involve an emergency, the police conduct was justified under the community caretaking doctrine.

There has been heightened concern over police conduct, including how authorities deal with mentally ill people, in the wake of protests in many cities last year against racism and police brutality.

President Joe Biden's administration backed police in the case. A Justice Department lawyer told the justices that officers should not be required to obtain warrants in situations in which people could be seriously harmed.

The Rhode Island case arose from a domestic dispute. An argument between Caniglia and his wife Kim that began over a Walt Disney (NYSE:DIS) World coffee mug escalated into a disagreement about her extended family, according to court papers. At one point, Caniglia retrieved a gun and asked his wife to shoot him to "get me out of my misery," according to court papers.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The United States Supreme Court Building's facade is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

She decided to spend the night at a hotel, then called police because she feared her husband could be suicidal.

Caniglia, 70, said in court papers he had no criminal history and no record of violence or misuse of guns. Police returned his guns only after he sued.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.