Recorded from the great state of Tennessee, just outside of Nashville, the day after the decision came down. Caniglia v. Strom was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 17, 2021. Anthony had been talking about the case for months and his students kept asking him for his opinion on it.
What is Caniglia v. Strom and why does it matter?
All right guys, we got to talk about Caniglia v. Strom, U.S. Supreme Court, May 17, 2021. I’ve been talking about this case for months. My students have asked me my opinion on it, I’ve given my opinion, and let me just share a little bit of background about it. It’s a very massive, hugely important case on two fronts. Number one, firearm confiscation under red flag laws. Number two, a little more guidance on the so-called community caretaking doctrine as it applies to homes.
Let me give you just some quick facts. I know you’re busy, I’m busy.
What happened in Caniglia v. Strom?
What happened was cops were called to a house because a husband, the night before, kind of threatened suicide in an indirect way. He told his wife that he was tired of fighting, tired of arguing, why don’t you just shoot me and get it all over with. That was kind of like his tone.
The wife then went to a hotel for the night. She called the husband the next morning, no answer. She feared that he actually did commit suicide, and called the police to do a welfare check on him.
They end up contacting him and he basically assured the cops that he was not a danger to himself. However, he did agree, and this is in Rhode Island by the way, he did agree to go to the hospital voluntarily to do a psychiatric evaluation.
So while he was gone, the cops then spoke to the wife. The wife returned to the home, and I believe this is several hours later, up to four hours later. The officers knew that he had a gun, right, or guns. They then entered the home without a warrant, without consent, and no exigency, to go seize the husband’s firearms. Why? Community caretaking. If we don’t seize these guns, maybe he comes back after the hospital and kills his wife, kills himself and so forth. So this is, you know, something like best practice, right?
Why did the husband sue the police?
Well, the husband then sues to get his guns back. He has a lot of problems getting his guns back and so forth. Finally he gets them back, but he sues over this whole entry to begin with. He’s saying, hey look, you should have never even gone into my house under those conditions. He filed a federal lawsuit, and he loses. Then he appeals to the First Circuit and loses. The First Circuit affirmed the actions of the police by saying that this was legitimate community caretaking.
Now at this point we have the First Circuit case, and at that time cops were asking me what do I think about it. And I made it very clear. I have a YouTube video about it. I said it’s not okay. It’s not going to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, this is before they even took the case. If the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue, it would not be okay.
Why do warrantless entries into a home require exigency?
And here’s why. Warrantless entries into the home are fundamentally based off of some form of emergency, urgency, exigency, something we cannot wait to go get judicial pre-approval for. That’s what these home entries are based on.
Think about it. When you enter a home to investigate a domestic violence, you do not get into that home simply because it’s a domestic violence call. No, my friends. You get in there, if you get in there, because you are able to articulate some kind of exigency, emergency and so forth, under the emergency aid doctrine, to protect somebody, to protect a wife, to render aid, to prevent the husband from hurting his family and so forth, and while we investigate what’s going on. So that’s why you get in there, and that’s what these home entries are based upon.
What is the community caretaking doctrine?
Well, community caretaking is not built in with exigency. It doesn’t require exigency. It just requires a reason to believe somebody needs or wants your help. There is no exigency.
Community caretaking is often applied to cars and pedestrians. You see a driver, and maybe they’re driving very slowly on the highway. Not illegal, but just maybe they have a mechanical issue. So you stop the car and check on the driver. Hey, are you okay? Is your car okay? That is community caretaking. There is no exigency there, though. Nobody’s in imminent harm and so forth. So that’s the issue.
Does the community caretaking doctrine apply to homes?
Now the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision was written by Justice Thomas, confirmed that the community caretaking doctrine does not apply to homes. He says that it never has applied to homes, and talks about needing the other traditional requirements to enter a home: emergency aid, consent, that type of thing, hot pursuit.
And so the ramifications of this case are wide, and far-reaching, extremely far-reaching, for two reasons.
Are red flag laws still enforceable after Caniglia v. Strom?
Number one, let’s talk about red flag laws. Many states around the country are trying to pass laws, or have passed laws, that allow police officers to enter a home to seize firearms for safekeeping even though the subject, the person who maybe is a danger to himself or others, is gone. Well, think about it. He’s gone. He’s already at the hospital. He’s already in the back of the police car, and so there’s no way he can access those weapons.
What happens to those laws? Well, my personal opinion is that they’re done. There is no way that you can enforce, in my opinion, a red flag law that gives police permission to warrantlessly enter a home to seize firearms without judicial pre-approval. And don’t forget that that statute, if it says as much, cannot supersede the Fourth Amendment. So the Fourth Amendment, according to this case, says that you need something more than just community caretaking. So I think any kind of red flag law that says that is certainly problematic.
Can police get consent from the wife to seize the guns?
Now, can cops get consent from the wife or another occupant that has lawful access to weapons? Sure. Now that could work, right? But if you don’t have that, then the traditional red flag law with no judicial authorization will not work.
Why do Second Amendment advocates see this as a win?
So many Second Amendment advocates are looking at this case as a huge blow to gun grabbers, because red flag laws are viewed a certain way by several people. Certainly there’s a case to be made for seizing firearms to prevent imminent harm to other people. There’s certainly a time and a place for it. But a lot of these cases seem to be an opportunity for some people just to grab firearms without the necessary judicial pre-approval, without the process.
And a lot of these states like New Jersey and New York that do seize firearms on a regular basis, it is almost impossible to get these guns back. And that’s what the husband experienced in Rhode Island, by the way. He had to sue to get his guns back, even though he was found to be mentally fit and not a danger to himself or others.
What does this case mean for officers going forward?
And then of course the other issue is that finally we have a Supreme Court case directly on point that says that community caretaking does not apply to homes. And that just makes sense. That just makes sense, for the reasons why: basically no exigency.
Guys, I think it’s a great case. I don’t know how you feel about it. I’m certainly happy with it. My prediction was that this case would come out this way. But it has far reaching consequences and so forth. We’ll see how it plays out. And that’s my little two bits.
It just came out yesterday. Several of my followers on YouTube and so forth wanted me to give my two cents on it. That’s my two cents. If you have anything else for me, let me know. If you have questions, let me know. Attend our training, see what we have online, share with your friends.
Until next time my friends, keep doing that great job out there.
The short version
- It’s a very massive, hugely important case on two fronts. Number one, firearm confiscation under red flag laws. Number two, a little more guidance on the so-called community caretaking doctrine as it applies to homes.
- The officers entered the home without a warrant, without consent, and no exigency, to go seize the husband’s firearms. Why? Community caretaking.
- Warrantless entries into the home are fundamentally based off of some form of emergency, urgency, exigency, something we cannot wait to go get judicial pre-approval for.
- Community caretaking is not built in with exigency. It doesn’t require exigency. It just requires a reason to believe somebody needs or wants your help.
- The decision was written by Justice Thomas, and he confirmed that the community caretaking doctrine does not apply to homes. He says that it never has applied to homes.
- My personal opinion is that they’re done. There is no way that you can enforce, in my opinion, a red flag law that gives police permission to warrantlessly enter a home to seize firearms without judicial pre-approval.
- Don’t forget that that statute, if it says as much, cannot supersede the Fourth Amendment.
- Can cops get consent from the wife or another occupant that has lawful access to weapons? Sure. Now that could work, right?
Related from Blue to Gold
- Community Caretaking and Red Flag Laws
- Can an Officer Enter a Garage Just to Close It?
- When Can Police Force Entry on a Suicidal Subject Call?
This article is an edited transcript of Roadside Chat Ep. #112. It is legal training, not legal advice. Check your state law and your agency policy, because both can be more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment.
