Texas SOT

Supreme Court Upholds 4th Amendment.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s question concerns an important
    real-world problem. Today, more than ever, many people,
    including many elderly persons, live alone.3 Many elderly
    men and women fall in their homes,4 or become incapaci-
    tated for other reasons, and unfortunately, there are many
    cases in which such persons cannot call for assistance. In
    those cases, the chances for a good recovery may fade with
    each passing hour.5 So in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s imaginary
    case, if the elderly woman was seriously hurt or sick and
    the police heeded petitioner’s suggestion about what the
    Fourth Amendment demands, there is a fair chance she
    would not be found alive. This imaginary woman may have
    regarded her house as her castle, but it is doubtful that she
    would have wanted it to be the place where she died alone
    and in agony.
    Our current precedents do not address situations like
    this. We have held that the police may enter a home with-
    out a warrant when there are “exigent circumstances.”
    Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 590 (1980). But circum-
    stances are exigent only when there is not enough time to
    get a warrant, see Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. 141, 149
    (2013); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509 (1978), and
    warrants are not typically granted for the purpose of check-
    ing on a person’s medical condition. Perhaps States should
    institute procedures for the issuance of such warrants, but
    —————— 3Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, The Rise of Living Alone,
    Fig. HH–4 (2020), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/
    library /visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-4.pdf;
    Ortiz-Ospina, The Rise of Living Alone (Dec. 10, 2019), https://our-
    worldindata.org/living-alone; Smith, Cities With the Most Adults Living
    Alone (May 4, 2020), https://www.self.inc/blog/adults-living-alone. 4See B. Moreland, R. Kakara, & A. Henry, Trends in Nonfatal Falls
    and Fall-Related Injuries Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years—United States,
    2012–2018, 69 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Rep. 875 (2020). 5See, e.g., J. Gurley, N. Lum, M. Sande, B. Lo, & M. Katz, Persons
    Found in Their Homes Helpless or Dead, 334 New Eng. J. Med. 1710
    (1996).

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    DK Firearms
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    in the meantime, courts may be required to grapple with
    the basic Fourth Amendment question of reasonableness.
    6. The three categories of cases discussed above are
    simply illustrative. Searches and seizures conducted for
    other non-law-enforcement purposes may arise and may
    present their own Fourth Amendment issues. Today’s de-
    cision does not settle those questions.
    * * *
    In sum, the Court properly rejects the broad “community
    caretaking” theory on which the decision below was based.
    The Court’s decision goes no further, and on that under-
    standing, I join the opinion in full.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    EDWARD A. CANIGLIA, PETITIONER v.
    ROBERT F. STROM, ET AL.
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
    APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    [May 17, 2021]
    JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
    I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to
    underscore and elaborate on THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s point
    that the Court’s decision does not prevent police officers
    from taking reasonable steps to assist those who are inside
    a home and in need of aid. See ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J.,
    concurring). For example, as I will explain, police officers
    may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances
    where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential su-
    icide or to help an elderly person who has been out of con-
    tact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.
    Ratified in 1791 and made applicable to the States in
    1868, the Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the peo-
    ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
    against unreasonable searches and seizures.” As the con-
    stitutional text establishes, the “ultimate touchstone of the
    Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” Riley v. California,
    573 U. S. 373, 381 (2014) (internal quotation marks omit-
    ted). The Court has said that a warrant supported by prob-
    able cause is ordinarily required for law enforcement offic-
    ers to enter a home. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 4. But drawing
    on common-law analogies and a commonsense appraisal of
    what is “reasonable,” the Court has recognized various sit-
    uations where a warrant is not required. For example, the
    exigent circumstances doctrine allows officers to enter a

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    EDWARD A. CANIGLIA, PETITIONER v.
    ROBERT F. STROM, ET AL.
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
    APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    [May 17, 2021]
    JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
    I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to
    underscore and elaborate on THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s point
    that the Court’s decision does not prevent police officers
    from taking reasonable steps to assist those who are inside
    a home and in need of aid. See ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J.,
    concurring). For example, as I will explain, police officers
    may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances
    where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential su-
    icide or to help an elderly person who has been out of con-
    tact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.
    Ratified in 1791 and made applicable to the States in
    1868, the Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the peo-
    ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
    against unreasonable searches and seizures.” As the con-
    stitutional text establishes, the “ultimate touchstone of the
    Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” Riley v. California,
    573 U. S. 373, 381 (2014) (internal quotation marks omit-
    ted). The Court has said that a warrant supported by prob-
    able cause is ordinarily required for law enforcement offic-
    ers to enter a home. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 4. But drawing
    on common-law analogies and a commonsense appraisal of
    what is “reasonable,” the Court has recognized various sit-
    uations where a warrant is not required. For example, the
    exigent circumstances doctrine allows officers to enter a

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    home without a warrant in certain situations, including: to
    fight a fire and investigate its cause; to prevent the immi-
    nent destruction of evidence; to engage in hot pursuit of a
    fleeing felon or prevent a suspect’s escape; to address a
    threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or the gen-
    eral public; to render emergency assistance to an injured
    occupant; or to protect an occupant who is threatened with
    serious injury. See Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U. S. ___, ___
    (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 6); City and County of
    San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U. S. 600, 612 (2015); Ken-
    tucky v. King, 563 U. S. 452, 460, 462 (2011); Michigan v.
    Fisher, 558 U. S. 45, 47 (2009) (per curiam); Brigham City
    v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403 (2006); Minnesota v. Olson, 495
    U. S. 91, 100 (1990); Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U. S. 287,
    293, and n. 4 (1984) (plurality opinion); Mincey v. Arizona,
    437 U. S. 385, 392–394 (1978); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S.
    499, 509–510 (1978); United States v. Santana, 427 U. S.
    38, 42–43 (1976); Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387
    U. S. 294, 298–299 (1967); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23,
    40–41 (1963) (plurality opinion).
    Over the years, many courts, like the First Circuit in this
    case, have relied on what they have labeled a “community
    caretaking” doctrine to allow warrantless entries into the
    home for a non-investigatory purpose, such as to prevent a
    suicide or to conduct a welfare check on an older individual
    who has been out of contact. But as the Court today ex-
    plains, any such standalone community caretaking doctrine
    was primarily devised for searches of cars, not homes. Ante,
    at 3–4; see Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 447–448
    (1973).
    That said, this Fourth Amendment issue is more labeling
    than substance. The Court’s Fourth Amendment case law
    already recognizes the exigent circumstances doctrine,
    which allows an officer to enter a home without a warrant
    if the “exigencies of the situation make the needs of law en

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    forcement so compelling that the warrantless search is ob-
    jectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
    Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 403 (internal quotation marks
    omitted); see also ante, at 3. As relevant here, one such rec-
    ognized “exigency” is the “need to assist persons who are
    seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Brigham
    City, 547 U. S., at 403; see also ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J.,
    concurring). The Fourth Amendment allows officers to en-
    ter a home if they have “an objectively reasonable basis for
    believing” that such help is needed, and if the officers’ ac-
    tions inside the home are reasonable under the circum-
    stances. Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 406; see also Michigan
    v. Fisher, 558 U. S., at 47–48.
    This case does not require us to explore all the contours
    of the exigent circumstances doctrine as applied to emer-
    gency-aid situations because the officers here disclaimed re-
    liance on that doctrine. But to avoid any confusion going
    forward, I think it important to briefly describe how the doc-
    trine applies to some heartland emergency-aid situations.
    As Chief Judge Livingston has cogently explained, alt-
    hough this doctrinal area does not draw much attention
    from courts or scholars, “municipal police spend a good deal
    of time responding to calls about missing persons, sick
    neighbors, and premises left open at night.” Livingston, Po-
    lice, Community Caretaking, and the Fourth Amendment,
    1998 U. Chi. Leg. Forum 261, 263 (1998). And as she aptly
    noted, “the responsibility of police officers to search for
    missing persons, to mediate disputes, and to aid the ill or
    injured has never been the subject of serious debate; nor
    has” the “responsibility of police to provide services in an
    emergency.” Id., at 302.
    Consistent with that reality, the Court’s exigency prece-
    dents, as I read them, permit warrantless entries when po-
    lice officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe
    that there is a current, ongoing crisis for which it is reason

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    able to act now. See, e.g., Sheehan, 575 U. S., at 612; Mich-
    igan v. Fisher, 558 U. S., at 48–49; Brigham City, 547 U. S.,
    at 406–407. The officers do not need to show that the harm
    has already occurred or is mere moments away, because
    knowing that will often be difficult if not impossible in cases
    involving, for example, a person who is currently suicidal or
    an elderly person who has been out of contact and may have
    fallen. If someone is at risk of serious harm and it is rea-
    sonable for officers to intervene now, that is enough for the
    officers to enter.
    A few (non-exhaustive) examples illustrate the point.
    Suppose that a woman calls a healthcare hotline or 911
    and says that she is contemplating suicide, that she has
    firearms in her home, and that she might as well die. The
    operator alerts the police, and two officers respond by driv-
    ing to the woman’s home. They knock on the door but do
    not receive a response. May the officers enter the home? Of
    course.
    The exigent circumstances doctrine applies because the
    officers have an “objectively reasonable basis” for believing
    that an occupant is “seriously injured or threatened with
    such injury.” Id., at 400, 403; cf. Sheehan, 575 U. S., at 612
    (officers could enter the room of a mentally ill person who
    had locked herself inside with a knife). After all, a suicidal
    individual in such a scenario could kill herself at any mo-
    ment. The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to
    stand idly outside as the suicide takes place.1
    Consider another example. Suppose that an elderly man
    is uncharacteristically absent from Sunday church services
    —————— 1 In 2019 in the United States, 47,511 people committed suicide. That
    number is more than double the number of annual homicides. See Dept.
    of Health and Human Servs., Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
    tion, D. Stone, C. Jones, & K. Mack, Changes in Suicide Rates––United
    States, 2018–2019, 70 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Rep. 261, 263
    (2021) (MMWR); Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uni-
    form Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2019, p. 2 (2020).

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    and repeatedly fails to answer his phone throughout the
    day and night. A concerned relative calls the police and
    asks the officers to perform a wellness check. Two officers
    drive to the man’s home. They knock but receive no re-
    sponse. May the officers enter the home? Of course.
    Again, the officers have an “objectively reasonable basis”
    for believing that an occupant is “seriously injured or
    threatened with such injury.” Brigham City, 547 U. S., at
    400, 403. Among other possibilities, the elderly man may
    have fallen and hurt himself, a common cause of death or
    serious injury for older individuals. The Fourth Amend-
    ment does not prevent the officers from entering the home
    and checking on the man’s well-being.2
    To be sure, courts, police departments, and police officers
    alike must take care that officers’ actions in those kinds of
    cases are reasonable under the circumstances. But both of
    those examples and others as well, such as cases involving
    unattended young children inside a home, illustrate the
    kinds of warrantless entries that are perfectly constitu-
    tional under the exigent circumstances doctrine, in my
    view.
    With those observations, I join the Court’s opinion in full.
    —————— 2 In 2018 in the United States, approximately 32,000 older adults died
    from falls. Falls are also the leading cause of injury for older adults. B.
    Moreland, R. Kakara, & A. Henry, Trends in Nonfatal Falls and Fall-
    Related Injuries Among Adults Aged ≥ 65 Years––United States, 2012–
    2018, 69 MMWR 875 (2020).

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,769
    96
    Austin, Texas
    The "bottom line" for many of us is that our domestic enemies keep seeking exceptions to our Constitutional Rights !

    leVieux
    Which is why this ruling is good in reaffirming our rights protected in the 4th amendment. The officers articulated no emergency, exigency or objectively reasonable basis for a search and seizure within in the subject's home.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Which is why this ruling is good in reaffirming our rights protected in the 4th amendment. The officers articulated no emergency, exigency or objectively reasonable basis for a search and seizure within in the subject's home.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

    Yes, exactly.

    I posted this as a sort of "summary" to remind that the underlying problem is still there, just didn't prevail over us this time. . . . . . . . . . .

    leVieux
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,120
    Messages
    2,953,351
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom