Supreme Court urged to allow entry for gun seizures

[yukonjasper]

Not that it surprises me, but please tell me that this has no chance of going anywhere....right?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/amp/

[Holland&Holland]

The fact that this even has to go to the Supreme Court to be determined it is unconstitutional does not bode well for our constitution.

[Bearcatrp]

Can't see it!

[yukonjasper]

Mar 23, 2021,12:40pm EST|380,111 views

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

Nick Sibilla

Senior Contributor

Policy

I cover criminal justice, entrepreneurship, and offbeat lawsuits.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, a case that could have sweeping consequences for policing, due process, and mental health, with the Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine states urging the High Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. But what would ultimately become a major Fourth Amendment case began with an elderly couple’s spat over a coffee mug. 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

In this amicus brief the ACLU, the ACLU of Rhode Island, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union Foundation, urge the Court to keep the “community caretaking” exception confined to its historic, vehicle related origins and reject a broader standard that would give police free rein to enter the home without probable cause or a warrant, whenever they think it is “reasonable” to do so.

“It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 477 (1971)). This rule recognizes that “the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home,” and that the protection of the home is “too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals.” McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-56 (1948).
cause requirement is subject to only a few “jealously and carefully drawn” exceptions. Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499 (1958). In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), this Court held that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after an accident. The Court acknowledged that, “except in certain carefully defined classes of cases,” police cannot search private property without consent or a warrant. Id. at 439. It emphasized, however, that “there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.” Id. (quoting Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52 (1970)).

Our amicus brief argues that Cady established a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, applicable only when a vehicle is taken under police custody or control. The exception is based on 1) the reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles; 2) the propriety of non-criminal inventory of automobiles under police custody or control; and 3) the adherence to standardized police procedures as a check on police discretion. There is no doctrinal support for extending the “community caretaking” doctrine beyond inventory searches of automobiles. Cady and its progeny begin and end with standardized searches of vehicles under police control.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/caniglia-v-strom-amicus-brief

[Bearcatrp]

God dam cops, atf, fbi, etc have shown they are not the ones to trust to make the decision to enter anyones home without a warrant. Make them get a warrant!

[Lumpy]

It's a well-known observation that liberals are inclined to say "F*** the Pigs!" on almost every subject except guns, when suddenly the police become shining paladins who protect and serve.

[Lumpy]

Not that it surprises me, but please tell me that this has no chance of going anywhere....right?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/amp/

This works:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill ... 5ac9bd2829

[Rip Van Winkle]

After reading the Forbes article I'm less confident of a positive outcome in this case.

Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone.

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

It's difficult to prove a 4th Amendment violation when your wife gives approval for the seizure.

[Holland&Holland]

Government overreach is nothing new.

[yukonjasper]

After reading the Forbes article I'm less confident of a positive outcome in this case.

Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone.

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

It's difficult to prove a 4th Amendment violation when your wife gives approval for the seizure.

I think we all forget that the police are allowed to lie to you.......

[xd ED]

I think we all forget that the police are allowed to lie to you.......

^^^THIS^^^
As tough as it is to accept for proponents of law and order, and many like myself who have friends, neighbors, and family in LE. when you are the focus of an 'investigation', for lack of a better term, the police, and the entire system are not your friend.

[Holland&Holland]

I think we all forget that the police are allowed to lie to you.......

^^^THIS^^^
As tough as it is to accept for proponents of law and order, and many like myself who have friends, neighbors, and family in LE. when you are the focus of an 'investigation', for lack of a better term, the police, and the entire system are not your friend.

This is an important lesson.