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