In the Fourth Amendment’s unanimous ruling, it reminds people that there is actually no place like home
May 17, 2021
At 4:20 pm
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued View in Canilla v Strom, The court unanimously held that the lower courts Kady v DombrowskiThe “community care” exception enters the family and violates Cardi, And violated the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment.With the unanimous consent of the court CanillaAccording to the Fourth Amendment, the house is still the most sacred space; its sacredness truly embodies its privilege. Without guarantee, urgency or consent, the government’s search and seizure of the government is unconstitutional.
During an argument with his wife in August 2015, Edward Caniglia provided her with an unloaded gun and asked her to get out of the situation. Instead, she threatened to call 911. After the couple had a quarrel, she left the marriage residence and spent the night in a hotel. When she returned the next day, she asked Rhode Island Police Department Cranston to conduct a health check on her husband. They did it. They also arranged Edward’s transportation for a psychiatric evaluation at the local hospital. He agreed to leave, but allegedly only after the officer agreed not to confiscate his weapons. However, after he left, the officer (apparently deceiving his wife) entered Caniglia’s residence and seized Caniglia’s pistol and ammunition. Caniglia filed a lawsuit alleging that these officials violated his Fourth Amendment rights.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit relies on Cardi, Was a 1973 decision that maintained an unfounded “cautious” search for cars that had accidents.
The court’s opinion written by Judge Clarence Thomas did not have the worrying and convincing specter that was triggered in the briefing and arguments, involving disturbing possibilities, for example, Canilla may have hurt He or his wife (or maybe someone else) is innocent/intervenes the victim). In the short four-page “long”, the opinion is unanimous and clear: if the police have not obtained the consent of the homeowner, there is no evidence of any kind in an “emergency” situation or a judicial warrant authorizing a search. CardiAccording to the Fourth Amendment, the car exception applies to police entering the home. Thomas wrote: “The reasonable choice of vehicles is not the same as the reasonable choice of houses.”
As always, real estate – and, Canilla, The Court’s Fourth Amendment precedent-location is very important. Specifically, CardiUnreasonable searches and seizures-routine searches of damaged and detained cars by drunken off-duty officers after the accident-cannot be compared to searches and seizures at home. The government conducts regular searches of vehicles as an exception to the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Numerous decisions make unauthorized searches of vehicles, carriages, containers and even occupants a constitution. None of these non-guaranteed exceptions apply to families.
Therefore, according to Cardi Thomas wrote that the police’s search or seizure in the house was neither arbitrary nor their “custodial” duties created an “independent doctrine that can justify baseless searches and confiscations in the house.” CardiHe pointed out that the car itself draws an “obvious difference” between the house and the house, embedding exceptions outside the house from the constitution.
The police may participate in countless “citizen” community care functions, which has not divorced the court from the highlights of its jurisprudence. Of course, these functions give texture to modern and sometimes complex police roles. However, they cannot replace the constitutional sanctity of houses. therefore, Canilla The court refuses to expand the opportunity CardiAn exception to this is the “community care” that allows unreasonable entry into the house.
The court reversed the judgment of the First Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court for agreement with opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh each issued a brief consensus opinion to clarify what they described The limitations of the court’s ruling.