SCOTUSblog by Lenese Herbert on Mar 22, 2021
Case PreviewThe maxim “a man’s house is his castle†is one of the oldest and most deeply rooted principles in Anglo-American jurisprudence. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that may test how much protection the Fourth Amendment truly provides the home. In Caniglia v. Strom, the issue is whether officers may rely on the “community caretaking†exception to the warrant requirement when conducting a warrantless search of and seizure within a home.
BackgroundDuring a heated late August argument in 2015, Edward Caniglia dramatically presented his wife of 22 years, Kim Caniglia, with an unloaded gun and requested that she put him out of his misery. She did not. Instead, she threatened to call 911. Edward temporarily left their home to “take a ride.†When he returned, the couple resumed arguing. This time, Kim decided she would leave. She packed a bag and overnighted at a hotel. Edward remained home, alone.
The next day, concerned that she and Edward had not communicated, Kim called the Cranston, Rhode Island, police department’s non-emergency number, requesting that they escort her home and perform a wellness check on her husband, given his prior day’s request and potential for self-harm. Police managed to reach Edward via telephone and escorted Kim back home, where they instructed her to remain in her car.
Upon arrival, officers spoke with Edward outside the Caniglia home. He confirmed the marital spat, as well as his prior day’s request that his wife shoot him, as he “was sick of the arguments†and “couldn’t take it anymore.†A couple of the officers on the scene reported that Edward was calm and cooperative; however, the ranking officer on the scene pronounced Edward “imminently dangerous to himself and others†and arranged for an ambulance transport to obtain a psychiatric evaluation. According to Edward, he agreed to go to the hospital on the condition that police would not confiscate his handguns.
None of the officers on the scene recall such an agreement, however. In fact, after the ambulance drove off, the ranking officer on the scene convinced Kim that her husband had consented to a search of their home. She then guided officers to Edward’s handguns and ammunition, which they seized, knowing that Edward had objected to the seizure. The officers said that, given Edward’s mental state, they believed leaving the weapons in the home would pose a danger to Edward, Kim and other people living in the neighborhood.
Meanwhile, at the hospital, Edward was evaluated but not admitted. Nor was he ever arrested or charged with a criminal offense. After the incident, the Caniglias made multiple unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the guns. They were finally returned in December.
Decisions belowEdward Caniglia sued the city of Cranston and individual officers alleging, among other federal and state law claims, a Section 1983 violation of his rights under the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking money damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, under the Fourth Amendment, Caniglia asserted that the seizures of his person and his guns were unreasonable.
More:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/theres-no-place-like-home/
