Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant

[Aim1]

Interesting case. The cops were already legally in the home but lied to get consent to search it appears.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...enter-a-home-to-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/

 

[buck460XVR]

After reading this, https://casetext.com/case/caniglia-v-strom-1, I can understand why the police may have been concerned about the Plaintiff's welfare. You have a heated argument with your wife, bring out a gun and she calls police, odds are something is going to go down. Have your wife tell police she is concerned about you committing suicide and odds are, they will take your guns until they are sure you won't. This from the linked article would tell me it should be over.

The firearms were returned in December. The CPD never prevented the plaintiff from obtaining other firearms at any time. Nor did the events at issue involve any criminal offense or investigation.

 

[P89DCSS]

Expanding the Patriot Act is planned, I expect that will exceed whatever rights the SCOTUS erodes on this case.

 

[NuShootr]

I find the title of this thread misleading. As per the article, there are already laws in place that allow an LEO to enter a home and potentially seize a firearm. The title of this thread implies that they will be able to do it anytime they want, for no cause. Which is not the case being presented to the Supreme Court.

 

[buck460XVR]

I find the title of this thread misleading.

IMHO, the article itself is misleading if you read the link provided in the OP's linked article. While the Op's linked article seems to imply that the officers lied to obtain access to the firearms, the other link says is is just disputed. Wives tend to change their story quite a bit in Domestic Dispute scenarios.

Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.

The parties dispute both whether Kim indicated that she wanted the guns removed and whether the officers secured her cooperation by telling her that her husband had consented to confiscation of the firearms.

There is also a question as to whether the officers lied to the plaintiff about not confiscating his firearms.

The plaintiff claims that he only agreed to be transported because the officers told him that his firearms would not be confiscated if he assented to go to the hospital for an evaluation. But the record contains no evidence from any of the four officers who were present at the residence suggesting that such a promise was made.

Seems the Forbes article is written by someone who has already decided, while the second article gives a more objective summary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And member buck460XVR understands and illustrated, one can’t really properly discuss legal issues based on the minimal information available from media sources.