National Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant - Unanimous Ruling 5/17/21-

[nwslopoke]

It's hard for some people with authority not to push the limits. But we clearly observed for the last year in particularly, restraint from the police under extreme circumstances. Can we expect the same when SCOTUS confirms this rule?

If Portland police can take a brick to the face and hold back I demand all police stay on the outside of people's doors without a warrant. Shouldn't be that hard.

 

[Savage Jav]

I pity the officers that try to enforce this sort of unconstitutional action.

They already have and most in the second ammendment community supported it.

 

[No_Regerts]

After reading the link, I have some issues with what happened. With vehicles, it may be reasonable to remove anything of value or anything that could be considered dangerous, and release it to a qualified person. When it comes to guns, someone described as exempt to transfer requirements (spouse, parent, sibling, etc.). It should be considered, absent a qualified adult, as property. Not evidence.

An officer may use a ruse to assist in a criminal investigation. If he wasn't being investigated of a crime, they should have told the truth rather than lying their way to consent to remove the firearms.

Because this was a home, with greater expectation of privacy and security as it is not public domain, and there was a qualified adult, there is no "community safety" issue.

 

[Pahonix]

 

[No_Regerts]

View attachment 821969

You would think that someone in the LE profession would get frustrated by people that know there rights, but it actually makes my job easier. As long as we all know that rights were respected and due process was afforded, I win! I hate losing from stupid mistakes.

 

[RevBadger]

After reading the link, I have some issues with what happened. With vehicles, it may be reasonable to remove anything of value or anything that could be considered dangerous, and release it to a qualified person. When it comes to guns, someone described as exempt to transfer requirements (spouse, parent, sibling, etc.). It should be considered, absent a qualified adult, as property. Not evidence.

An officer may use a ruse to assist in a criminal investigation. If he wasn't being investigated of a crime, they should have told the truth rather than lying their way to consent to remove the firearms.

Because this was a home, with greater expectation of privacy and security as it is not public domain, and there was a qualified adult, there is no "community safety" issue.

Not gunna lie. I came to this thread to see if you'd post. Thanks for not letting me down.

 

[Pahonix]

An officer may use a ruse to assist in a criminal investigation. If he wasn't being investigated of a crime, they should have told the truth rather than lying their way to consent to remove the firearms.

Just curious your opinion, do you have think the ruse should have qualified for a Brady investigation against the officers?

(Placement on a Brady list)

 

[No_Regerts]

Just curious your opinion, do you have think the ruse should have qualified for a Brady bill investigation against the officers?

Yes.

 

[ma96782]

From the article.

The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said "shoot me now and get it over with." His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting "normal" or "agitated" but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (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 police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

So, what are the lessons to learn?

Choose your wife (or husband, or partner) carefully. Know when to eject.
Police should NOT lie. Though we all know that in some cases.....it helps.

Perhaps.....the police should not be in the business of "domestic problems/mental health problems/social work."
Rrrright.... "Defund the Police." Cough, cough...

++++++++++

LOL.....I can remember that time when a wife came down to the station to complain that her husband had given away "her dog" to the Humane Society.

++++++++++

Now, think for a second......
Yeah.....that wife from the article said that he had two guns. Though the article isn't clear on ......why.......she mentioned it.

Was she worried about the possibility that the gun(s) may/might be used to hurt himself (or perhaps herself and/or perhaps others)? Say that the firearms remained in the household and later when the husband returns after a short stay in the hospital....maybe, immediately or even a day/week later.....violence with the gun(s) occurs? Could the violence have been prevented? What is the responding officer(s)/Police Dept's civil liability?

Yeah.....action or inaction? And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....I can also remember that time when a woman objected to having a Ruger Mk1 in her home. But it wasn't even her property (maybe, it was her BF's or son's). LOL....my partner.....took it apart and the parts were left behind at the home. Yeah.....she felt better about that temporary solution. BTW.....to this day, I have no idea how to put a Ruger Mk1 back together again.

Hummmmm.......and imagine him running to the drawer one dark night. Only to discover the parts.

 

[hongkong2]

If the Supreme Court does rule that the police can not enter your home Biden will just sign a executive order and use the military.

 

[The Heretic]

If the Supreme Court does rule that the police can not enter your home Biden will just sign a executive order and use the military.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bolus]

why cant they just get a warrant? its not like judges follow some universal rules, they just do what the party says to do.

Plus, its not like they are going to stop without a warrant. They'll get a warrant, if they cant they will fabricate a reason for a warrant. flash bangs dont throw themselves into cribs by themselves, someone has to do it.

 

[308]

Yes, some are. May others are NOT. WTF are YOU

Notta n00b....

 

[Yotehunt]

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Naw, that will change too. Already talks on that..

 

[awshoot]

Here's my guess: the situation is messy enough, and the court under enough political pressure from Democrats (court packing), that SCOTUS will issue a ruling expanding the community caretaking function to the home. 30 years from now, those of us still alive, will remember the good old days when the police couldn't just traipse through your house for no reason, but by then, this case will have been expanded to allow that exact situation. Just like how the failure to get a warrant for a purse snatching telephone harrasser's phone records in the mid 70s, is now used as a lynchpin in the argument for why the government gets to spy on all American's telephone conversations.

Smith v. Maryland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Link is good but headline doesn't show: "Maryland case provides basis for NSA surveillance":

Maryland case provides basis for NSA surveillance

Neither Howard Cardin, the skillful criminal defense attorney from Baltimore, nor Steve Sachs, the best attorney general in modern Maryland history, could have predicted what Sachs now calls the &#…

www.baltimoresun.com

 

[BroncoFan]

Poorly worded headline. This is not a 2a case but rather a 4th. After reading the case, the circumstances, lack of exigency, I'll bet a good bottle of whiskey Scotus will overturn. There is a time and place for community caretaking, but this wasn't one.

 

[awshoot]

Poorly worded headline. This is not a 2a case but rather a 4th. After reading the case, the circumstances, lack of exigency, I'll bet a good bottle of whiskey Scotus will overturn. There is a time and place for community caretaking, but this wasn't one.

I agree they should overturn, but I'm a cynic.

 

[ma96782]

why cant they just get a warrant? its not like judges follow some universal rules, they just do what the party says to do.

Plus, its not like they are going to stop without a warrant. They'll get a warrant, if they cant they will fabricate a reason for a warrant. flash bangs dont throw themselves into cribs by themselves, someone has to do it.

From my very limited experience....
Well, getting a warrant isn't/wasn't as easy as some people might think. At least in my day. Not to mention that you would practically need a lawyer to write one out. Yeah.....make sure everything is spelled out correctly and in the order that the judges like to see things, etc... etc....

Wow....maybe it's time for a fill in the blanks form?

Aloha, Mark

 

[nwslopoke]

From my very limited experience....
Well, getting a warrant isn't/wasn't as easy as some people might think. At least in my day. Not to mention that you would practically need a lawyer to write one out. Yeah.....make sure everything is spelled out correctly and in the order that the judges like to see things, etc... etc....

Wow....maybe it's time for a fill in the blanks form?

Aloha, Mark

That is a good thing. It should be hard to override someone's rights.

 

[ma96782]

LOL.

BUT, But, but.....

Someone can get get a Restraining Order (which also means, NO GUNS FOR YOU) with just a fill in the blank form. And, there are other people (paid by the taxpayers) who will help you to fill it out correctly too.

Aloha, Mark

PS....not to mention the many restraining orders that parents took out to prevent their minor aged daughters from seeing the girl's BF (doesn't matter adult or not) that they don't/didn't approve of. YUP. And arrests were expected (no, and, if, or but) if/when a violation occurred.

Think about it.

She calls him. He talks with her. BUT.....he had been served the restraining order (not the other way around). So guess who is in trouble and who will get arrested?