In response to a writ seeking the review of a lower court’s summary judgment, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in a unanimous decision did not uphold the lower court. This is good for all of us.
According to a law dictionary, a summary judgment “may be granted upon a party’s motion when the pleadings, discovery, and any affidavits show that there is no issue of material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.”
What does that mean in plain language for this article? It means the police need a damn good lawful reason to enter your home and take you or your stuff with or without a warrant.
What does the SCOTUS’ decision mean? It means that the Fourth Amendment matters, isn’t to be circumnavigated lightly, and after hearing arguments for it and against on March 24, 2021, on May 17, 2021, SCOTUS let everyone know why it matters and shouldn’t be trampled — even in kindness.
Here’s what happened.
Edward Caniglia of Rhode Island was having a bad day. So bad, he wanted to end his life. He put a handgun on a table and told his wife to kill him. She did not. After spending the night in a hotel, she called her husband. Upon not getting an answer upon multiple calls, she feared her husband may be dead and called the police.
The police came and found Ed on the porch. Worried he may still be of a mind to harm himself, they got him to agree to a psych evaluation. He would do it, he said, if they promised not to enter his home and take his guns. The police must have agreed because off Ed went willingly. After he left, the police told the wife that Ed said they could enter the home, whereupon they proceeded to search his house and take all his guns.
I’m sure these local LEOs had the best of intentions. They have probably been to many a suicide by gun and seen messes the likes of which they don’t want to ever see again. In their minds, they weren’t hurting Ed, they were helping him and avoiding a future tragedy.
However, whether or not the local LEOs knew it, those kind actions were killing the rights guaranteeing our freedoms.
Ed found out what happened. He didn’t like being tricked, having his wife lied to, and having his rights squashed. He fought for his rights and sued the police on the basis of his Fourth Amendment right, which says:
“Search and Seizure: 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 probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
But the lower court said that no law had been broken, Ed’s rights had not been trampled, and the “community caretaking exception” applied in this case. Ed’s suit was dismissed with a summary judgment. Ed did not agree with that, continued to allege the police had done wrong, and the case was kicked up to SCOTUS for review.
SCOTUS decision summary:
Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous decision overturning the lower court’s ruling. Other justices weighed in. Here is my summary of their pertinent comments about the “community caretaking exception”:
- There is a time and a place for such actions by citizens and the police (criminal activity, imminent fear of harm to self and others, car wreck, house fire, etc.), but it is not an open-ended license to perform such tasks any old place and time one pleases even if motives are pure.
- It is not a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Furthermore, the police cannot just do what they want to protect a person even if intentions are good — as they often are — but the person doesn’t want the help.
- Entering Ed’s home and taking his weapons fell under the scope of a warrant which the police did not get nor have basis for getting.
- Ed’s situation did not fall under “exigent circumstances” as Ed was clearly not harming himself nor threatening himself or anyone else at the time the officers arrived. He was simply sitting on the porch of his private home.
- Since Ed went with the police because they promised not to take his guns, his going with them for a psych eval based on a lie was them illegally seizing him against his Fourth Amendment right.
If you do not have a copy of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, I urge you to get one for your home. Read it. Makes notes in it. Understand it.
Sign in and start a discussion below on this subject.
Thank you for participating in spreading good messaging and share this with your friends and social network!
Born and raised in Georgia, Angela K. Durden is an author, publisher, editor, songwriter, performer, and more, living in the Metro Atlanta, Georgia, area. Support your Citizen Journalist and visit her Consolidated Author Page and purchase a book or three of high-quality content.
Want to watch a fun video? Click here.
