The Police Care-Taking Function does not Extend Inside the Home

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

 Caniglia v. Strom (SCOTUS May 17, 2021)

Background. Edward Caniglia was arguing with his wife at home in Rhode Island. He took a handgun from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and told his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” She left the house and checked into a hotel. When he did not answer the phone the next day, she called the police to conduct a welfare check at the house. She went home with the police and saw Caniglia was still alive and did not want to go to the hospital for a psychiatric examination. He was eventually coaxed out and made the police promise that they would not take away his guns. After he left the house, the police went inside the residence and confiscated two handguns.

 

Caniglia sued the police on the grounds that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted summary judgment for the police and it was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. The SCOTUS took certiorari.

 

The Right to be Free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures in the home does not have a “Welfare Check” Exception. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is protected by the Fourth Amendment. This guarantees “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013). There are, of course, exceptions such as entry pursuant to a valid warrant. Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. __ (2018). There is also an exception allowing the police to “render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011).

 

The First Circuit upheld the search on the grounds that the police were executing a noncriminal “community care-taking function” pursuant to Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). The SCOTUS rejected this expansion of the community care-taking function. According to the SCOTUS, Cady involved the warrantless search of an impounded vehicle, not the home. The Cady Court noted that officers patrolling public roads have a caretaking function like checking on disabled vehicles and investigating traffic accidents. Id. at 441.

 

That does not extend to the home. The SCOTUS noted that welfare checks to help motorists are “not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. . . . What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes.” The SCOTUS vacated the judgment below.

 

Chief Justice Roberts’s Concurrence. The Chief Justice concurred and wrote separately to note the officers do not need a warrant to enter the home “to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). Nothing here is inconsistent with that. This was not an emergency and there was no reason to believe anyone was seriously injured or threatened with injury by the time Caniglia left the home and his firearms unattended. Justice Breyer joined.

 

The Other Concurrences. Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh wrote separate concurring opinions. They agreed with the majority opinion—a brief four pages written by Justice Clarence Thomas—and the Chief Justice. They both highlighted the need for officers to enter homes to investigate the possibility of an emergency and render aid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bath...
Read more

If you're going to set bail, it has to be reasonable and can't be excessive so $3.3 million won't work

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Carter (ICA March 6, 2024) Background. Samuel Carter was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. He was held in jail without bail. About four months later, Carter filed a motion for supervised release or, in the alternative, a motion to set bail. Carter argued that there had been no findings supporting the decision to hold him without bail. The prosecution opposed and attached a letter to the Circuit Court noting that there had been no bail report because of the no-bail determination. According to the pretrial services intake center, it would not assess Carter’s eligibility for supervised release unless and until the court sets bail first.   At the hearing on the motion, Carter asked that bail be set at $100,000. The prosecution objected and argued that there was a rebuttable presumption of detention, Carter posed a danger to the community, and there was a flight risk. The prosecution did maintain that even though he could be...
Read more

HSC doesn’t wait for Rule 40 to find defense counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Yuen (HSC August 20, 2024) Background. Charles Tung Ming Yuen was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately fifty feet from the O’Malley Gate just outside of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. Two vehicles were approaching the gate when one of the vehicle rear-ended the one in front of it. Military police came onto the scene and identified Yuen as the driver of the vehicle that cause the collision. They seized him and subjected him to standardized field sobriety tests. Then they held him and called the Honolulu Police Department to report a “possible DUI outside the gate.”   The collision, seizure of Yuen, and their investigation occurred outside of the base within the City and County of Honolulu. The police showed up and took over. They conducted their investigation, saw signs of intoxication, and arrested Yuen.   Yuen’s lawyer, Barry Sooalo, di...
Read more