https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ive-police-more-power-to-search-homes-without
Unanimous decision is great news.
Unanimous decision is great news.
Caniglia vs Strom, SCOTUS confirms need for warrent to search home
- Thread starter P89DCSS
- Start date
- Status
Meant to send a message to ALL the lower courts.
gyp_c2
Member
How is that gonna' play with Red Flag state laws? Will there have to be a warrant issued in order to seize someones' guns?
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
And while the court has final say in what the constitution means, the language is pretty clear even to a layman like me:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
RickD427
Member
It doesn't look like this decision is going to affect any of the 'Red Flag" laws that I have seen.
The key to this decision is that Court found the LEOs actions to be "Unreasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because there was no warrant or prior judicial review of their actions. The LEOs argued that the Cady decision made their actions "Reasonable" within the Fourth Amendment and the Court pretty soundly rejected that argument.
If there were a "Red Flag" law that was written such that LEOs didn't have to go before a judge prior to seizing weapons, then that law would likely become toast under today's decision, but all of the "Red Flag" laws that I have seen do require prior judicial authorization and that puts them pretty much outta the reach of today's decision.
CapnMac
Member
Alito addresses that in his Point 4.
This case has nothing to do with RFL. Alito expresses this explicitly, only warrant-less seizures. He also addresses that RFL are likely to be contested on 4th Amendment grounds, and brought to SCOTUS.
alsaqr
Member
Exactly!!!
"4. 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."
20-157 Caniglia v. Strom (05/17/2021) (supremecourt.gov)
LiveLife
Member
UPDATE: Lawsuit settled in April 2022 - https://riaclu.org/en/cases/caniglia-v-city-cranston
Settlement Agreement pdf
Settlement Agreement pdf
This is a successful federal lawsuit over a Cranston Police Department policy of refusing to return firearms seized without a warrant from residents who were neither charged with a crime nor found to pose a danger to themselves or others. The suit, on behalf of resident Edward Caniglia, argues the Cranston Police Department violated his right to due process and his right to keep and bear arms by retaining his firearms without just cause after seizing them without a warrant.
https://rumble.com/v11hu80-supreme-...sion-in-firearm-confiscation-case-settle.html
RickD427
Member
Let's note that while Mr. Caniglia receives $31,000 under the settlement, his lawyers are gonna receive $218,722.15. And that's not counting whatever fees were paid to the defense attorneys.
- Status
