Warrantless searches and seizures

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,250
11,356
2,265
Texas hill country
In a case argued before the US Supreme Court a few days ago, the Biden Administration, along with attorneys general from nine states, submitted arguments asking the justices to uphold warrantless home entry and gun confiscation by police.

The case stems from a domestic dispute between an elderly married couple, Edward and Kim Caniglia. After an intense argument between the two that led to Edward dramatically telling his wife to shoot him with one of his handguns, Kim left the home to spend the night in a hotel. The next day she was unable to reach her husband and became concerned.

She reached out to police for a wellness check and an escort back to the home. But upon their arrival, police manipulated Edward into a psychiatric evaluation even though officers admitted in their incident report that he “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.” The police officers then lied to Mrs. Caniglia and told her Mr. Caniglia agreed to confiscation of his weapons. Even though Edwards was promptly released from the hospital, he was only able to regain his property after filing a civil rights lawsuit.


Police in the case relied upon a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment called “community caretaking.” This exception is a half-century old Supreme Court-created doctrine designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety. Essentially it was meant to give law enforcement a legal way to remove cars from the side of the interstate or clear wrecks.

While the First Circuit US Court of Appeals acknowledged the doctrine’s reach outside the context of motor vehicles is “ill-defined,” it upheld the arguments in this case and allowed the exception to extend to private homes. In its finding the Court states that this exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action.”

But attorneys for Caniglia argue that extending the community caretaking exception to private homes would be an assault on the Fourth Amendment and would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.

An amicus brief filed by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union agreed with the attorneys and pointed to jurisdictions that have extended such provisions leading to warrantless invasions of homes for things like loud music or leaky pipes.
.

.
To cite just one study out of hundreds, the US Sentencing Commission found that when it comes to federal gun crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to get longer sentences for similar crimes, and more likely to get sentencing enhancements. If the Supreme Court upholds the administration’s argument, it is not difficult to predict which communities will be impacted the most by this new expansion.


One does not need to have a long memory to understand exactly how such permissions could go awry. For anyone who has paid attention to the news cycle over the past year, it is jarring to see a Democratic administration argue for warrantless home entry and gun seizures merely one year after Breonna Taylor’s death.

Taylor was killed in her home by police after a no-knock entry (tied to a falsified warrant) led to cops spraying her apartment (and surrounding ones) with bullets. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by criminals during the middle of the night, fired in defense and was originally charged in the case (all charges were later dropped and he is suing the department).

The case created a national firestorm that elevated conversations around Second Amendment rights and self-defense, no-knock warrants, Fourth Amendment protections, and the need for policing reform and accountability. If such atrocities occurred under our current laws, it is pretty scary to imagine what law enforcement might get away with should the Biden administration get its way in this case.

Such arguments before the Supreme Court show that for many progressives their admirable instinct to restrict police power quickly goes out the window when they see an opportunity to chip away at gun rights.



So, what we have here is a disagreement over your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, and how much the gov't can impose their will on them. We know that the progressive democrats are all in on gun control and gun confiscation whenever they can get away with it. And they are willing to allow police to execute a warrantless search and seizure on your property to do it. Proof positive IMHO that they don't give a flyin' fuck about your rights.

In another amicus brief filed by the public interest litigation giant, the Institute for Justice, attorneys argued “The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization. A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

The Breonna Taylor case should have been a turning point in our nation’s history and spurred legislation that would strengthen and uphold our essential individual rights and restrict police power. Many hoped it would be the final straw that brought an end to egregious practices like no-knock warrants. Instead, despite much public outcry and demand, we continue to see politicians on both sides of the aisle push for increased police power and an erosion of our right to be secure in our homes and our property.

.
.
Make no mistake, this is among the most appalling attacks on our fundamental rights and way of life currently occurring. It is an attack on property rights, on our right to self-defense, and on our right to privacy, and if it is allowed there will be gross violations of individuals as a repercussion.

It is vitally important to remember that police brutality is a direct consequence of a government that has grown too big and powerful. The more power we give to the government and its agents, the more prone it has to abuse. It’s time we address the root cause of the problem and put the government back in its place.



My own take: I'm a law and order guy, and I back the blue. But I believe that the police should have a warrant to bust down your door and search your house, a warrant obtained based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing/illegal activity. And certainly the police should not have the right to seize any property without that warrant. If an individual has weapon and has shown himself to be unstable and a definite risk to him/herself or others, then I can see at least a temporary seizure of weapons. But not if the individual “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.”
 
Last edited:
In a case argued before the US Supreme Court a few days ago, the Biden Administration, along with attorneys general from nine states, submitted arguments asking the justices to uphold warrantless home entry and gun confiscation by police.

The case stems from a domestic dispute between an elderly married couple, Edward and Kim Caniglia. After an intense argument between the two that led to Edward dramatically telling his wife to shoot him with one of his handguns, Kim left the home to spend the night in a hotel. The next day she was unable to reach her husband and became concerned.

She reached out to police for a wellness check and an escort back to the home. But upon their arrival, police manipulated Edward into a psychiatric evaluation even though officers admitted in their incident report that he “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.” The police officers then lied to Mrs. Caniglia and told her Mr. Caniglia agreed to confiscation of his weapons. Even though Edwards was promptly released from the hospital, he was only able to regain his property after filing a civil rights lawsuit.


Police in the case relied upon a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment called “community caretaking.” This exception is a half-century old Supreme Court-created doctrine designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety. Essentially it was meant to give law enforcement a legal way to remove cars from the side of the interstate or clear wrecks.

While the First Circuit US Court of Appeals acknowledged the doctrine’s reach outside the context of motor vehicles is “ill-defined,” it upheld the arguments in this case and allowed the exception to extend to private homes. In its finding the Court states that this exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action.”

But attorneys for Caniglia argue that extending the community caretaking exception to private homes would be an assault on the Fourth Amendment and would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.

An amicus brief filed by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union agreed with the attorneys and pointed to jurisdictions that have extended such provisions leading to warrantless invasions of homes for things like loud music or leaky pipes.
.

.
To cite just one study out of hundreds, the US Sentencing Commission found that when it comes to federal gun crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to get longer sentences for similar crimes, and more likely to get sentencing enhancements. If the Supreme Court upholds the administration’s argument, it is not difficult to predict which communities will be impacted the most by this new expansion.


One does not need to have a long memory to understand exactly how such permissions could go awry. For anyone who has paid attention to the news cycle over the past year, it is jarring to see a Democratic administration argue for warrantless home entry and gun seizures merely one year after Breonna Taylor’s death.

Taylor was killed in her home by police after a no-knock entry (tied to a falsified warrant) led to cops spraying her apartment (and surrounding ones) with bullets. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by criminals during the middle of the night, fired in defense and was originally charged in the case (all charges were later dropped and he is suing the department).

The case created a national firestorm that elevated conversations around Second Amendment rights and self-defense, no-knock warrants, Fourth Amendment protections, and the need for policing reform and accountability. If such atrocities occurred under our current laws, it is pretty scary to imagine what law enforcement might get away with should the Biden administration get its way in this case.

Such arguments before the Supreme Court show that for many progressives their admirable instinct to restrict police power quickly goes out the window when they see an opportunity to chip away at gun rights.



So, what we have here is a disagreement over your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, and how much the gov't can impose their will on them. We know that the progressive democrats are all in on gun control and gun confiscation whenever they can get away with it. And they are willing to allow police to execute a warrantless search and seizure on your property to do it. Proof positive IMHO that they don't give a flyin' fuck about your rights.

In another amicus brief filed by the public interest litigation giant, the Institute for Justice, attorneys argued “The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization. A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

The Breonna Taylor case should have been a turning point in our nation’s history and spurred legislation that would strengthen and uphold our essential individual rights and restrict police power. Many hoped it would be the final straw that brought an end to egregious practices like no-knock warrants. Instead, despite much public outcry and demand, we continue to see politicians on both sides of the aisle push for increased police power and an erosion of our right to be secure in our homes and our property.

.
.
Make no mistake, this is among the most appalling attacks on our fundamental rights and way of life currently occurring. It is an attack on property rights, on our right to self-defense, and on our right to privacy, and if it is allowed there will be gross violations of individuals as a repercussion.

It is vitally important to remember that police brutality is a direct consequence of a government that has grown too big and powerful. The more power we give to the government and its agents, the more prone it has to abuse. It’s time we address the root cause of the problem and put the government back in its place.



My own take: I'm a law and order guy, and I back the blue. But I believe that the police should have a warrant to bust down your door and search your house, a warrant obtained based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing/illegal activity. And certainly the police should not have the right to seize any property without that warrant. If an individual has weapon and has shown himself to be unstable and a definite risk to him/herself or others, then I can see at least a temporary seizure of weapons. But not if the individual “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.”
“We know that the progressive democrats are all in on gun control and gun confiscation whenever they can get away with it.”

This is a lie.

Democrats have no desire to ‘confiscate’ guns.

The firearm regulatory measures Democrats advocate for are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence the Supreme Court having never invalidated any the those proposed measures.

Consequently, there is no disagreement concerning citizens’ Second and Fourth Amendment rights, the notion that there is disagreement is a lie; indeed, liberals are in agreement with Second Amendment case law and have been the most ardent defenders of the Fourth Amendment.
 
In a case argued before the US Supreme Court a few days ago, the Biden Administration, along with attorneys general from nine states, submitted arguments asking the justices to uphold warrantless home entry and gun confiscation by police.
That's working up to justifiable use of lethal force to defend one's home.
My own take: I'm a law and order guy, and I back the blue. But I believe that the police should have a warrant to bust down your door and search your house, a warrant obtained based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing/illegal activity
Law and order? Sure.
Back the blue? No.

If you're a cop you have warrant paperwork from a court of law of the appropriate jurisdiction signed off by the judge to cover your ass before you set foot on private property.
 
Resist them with force.

Not a good idea Mike, warrant or no warrant if you resist with force then you probably gonna die. And frankly you should die IMHO for putting everyone involved in danger, the other people in your house and the cops that you shoot. It ain't their fault, why should one or more of them die at your hand for doing their job?

I see this scenario as similar to when a person resists arrest by the cops, uses or shows a weapon or what looks like a weapon, and gets himself shot. It doesn't have to be, STFU and do as you're told, don't make the situation worse than it has to be. If the cops did not have sufficient cause or reason then sue the bastards for a ton of money. That might be the best way to get rid of bad cops or bad cop practices, make it too costly to continue.
 
Not a good idea Mike, warrant or no warrant if you resist with force then you probably gonna die. And frankly you should die IMHO for putting everyone involved in danger, the other people in your house and the cops that you shoot. It ain't their fault, why should one or more of them die at your hand for doing their job?

I see this scenario as similar to when a person resists arrest by the cops, uses or shows a weapon or what looks like a weapon, and gets himself shot. It doesn't have to be, STFU and do as you're told, don't make the situation worse than it has to be. If the cops did not have sufficient cause or reason then sue the bastards for a ton of money. That might be the best way to get rid of bad cops or bad cop practices, make it too costly to continue.
It's a great idea. More cops getting met with force for doing illegal searches and seizures is what should happen. Courts are corrupt.
 
In a case argued before the US Supreme Court a few days ago, the Biden Administration, along with attorneys general from nine states, submitted arguments asking the justices to uphold warrantless home entry and gun confiscation by police.

The case stems from a domestic dispute between an elderly married couple, Edward and Kim Caniglia. After an intense argument between the two that led to Edward dramatically telling his wife to shoot him with one of his handguns, Kim left the home to spend the night in a hotel. The next day she was unable to reach her husband and became concerned.

She reached out to police for a wellness check and an escort back to the home. But upon their arrival, police manipulated Edward into a psychiatric evaluation even though officers admitted in their incident report that he “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.” The police officers then lied to Mrs. Caniglia and told her Mr. Caniglia agreed to confiscation of his weapons. Even though Edwards was promptly released from the hospital, he was only able to regain his property after filing a civil rights lawsuit.


Police in the case relied upon a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment called “community caretaking.” This exception is a half-century old Supreme Court-created doctrine designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety. Essentially it was meant to give law enforcement a legal way to remove cars from the side of the interstate or clear wrecks.

While the First Circuit US Court of Appeals acknowledged the doctrine’s reach outside the context of motor vehicles is “ill-defined,” it upheld the arguments in this case and allowed the exception to extend to private homes. In its finding the Court states that this exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action.”

But attorneys for Caniglia argue that extending the community caretaking exception to private homes would be an assault on the Fourth Amendment and would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.

An amicus brief filed by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union agreed with the attorneys and pointed to jurisdictions that have extended such provisions leading to warrantless invasions of homes for things like loud music or leaky pipes.
.

.
To cite just one study out of hundreds, the US Sentencing Commission found that when it comes to federal gun crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to get longer sentences for similar crimes, and more likely to get sentencing enhancements. If the Supreme Court upholds the administration’s argument, it is not difficult to predict which communities will be impacted the most by this new expansion.


One does not need to have a long memory to understand exactly how such permissions could go awry. For anyone who has paid attention to the news cycle over the past year, it is jarring to see a Democratic administration argue for warrantless home entry and gun seizures merely one year after Breonna Taylor’s death.

Taylor was killed in her home by police after a no-knock entry (tied to a falsified warrant) led to cops spraying her apartment (and surrounding ones) with bullets. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by criminals during the middle of the night, fired in defense and was originally charged in the case (all charges were later dropped and he is suing the department).

The case created a national firestorm that elevated conversations around Second Amendment rights and self-defense, no-knock warrants, Fourth Amendment protections, and the need for policing reform and accountability. If such atrocities occurred under our current laws, it is pretty scary to imagine what law enforcement might get away with should the Biden administration get its way in this case.

Such arguments before the Supreme Court show that for many progressives their admirable instinct to restrict police power quickly goes out the window when they see an opportunity to chip away at gun rights.



So, what we have here is a disagreement over your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, and how much the gov't can impose their will on them. We know that the progressive democrats are all in on gun control and gun confiscation whenever they can get away with it. And they are willing to allow police to execute a warrantless search and seizure on your property to do it. Proof positive IMHO that they don't give a flyin' fuck about your rights.

In another amicus brief filed by the public interest litigation giant, the Institute for Justice, attorneys argued “The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization. A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

The Breonna Taylor case should have been a turning point in our nation’s history and spurred legislation that would strengthen and uphold our essential individual rights and restrict police power. Many hoped it would be the final straw that brought an end to egregious practices like no-knock warrants. Instead, despite much public outcry and demand, we continue to see politicians on both sides of the aisle push for increased police power and an erosion of our right to be secure in our homes and our property.

.
.
Make no mistake, this is among the most appalling attacks on our fundamental rights and way of life currently occurring. It is an attack on property rights, on our right to self-defense, and on our right to privacy, and if it is allowed there will be gross violations of individuals as a repercussion.

It is vitally important to remember that police brutality is a direct consequence of a government that has grown too big and powerful. The more power we give to the government and its agents, the more prone it has to abuse. It’s time we address the root cause of the problem and put the government back in its place.



My own take: I'm a law and order guy, and I back the blue. But I believe that the police should have a warrant to bust down your door and search your house, a warrant obtained based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing/illegal activity. And certainly the police should not have the right to seize any property without that warrant. If an individual has weapon and has shown himself to be unstable and a definite risk to him/herself or others, then I can see at least a temporary seizure of weapons. But not if the individual “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.”

It's stunning that the Biden regime is SO fascist, the ACLU is protesting their policies.
 
Not a good idea Mike, warrant or no warrant if you resist with force then you probably gonna die. And frankly you should die IMHO for putting everyone involved in danger, the other people in your house and the cops that you shoot. It ain't their fault, why should one or more of them die at your hand for doing their job?
It isn’t the cops' "job" to invade our homes, guns blazing, shooting at us without a warrant based on probable cause, or even with a warrant obtained by subornation of perjury and parallel construction.
 
Not a good idea Mike, warrant or no warrant if you resist with force then you probably gonna die. And frankly you should die IMHO for putting everyone involved in danger, the other people in your house and the cops that you shoot. It ain't their fault, why should one or more of them die at your hand for doing their job?

I see this scenario as similar to when a person resists arrest by the cops, uses or shows a weapon or what looks like a weapon, and gets himself shot. It doesn't have to be, STFU and do as you're told, don't make the situation worse than it has to be. If the cops did not have sufficient cause or reason then sue the bastards for a ton of money. That might be the best way to get rid of bad cops or bad cop practices, make it too costly to continue.

To some extent I agree with you. To another. Not so much.

There may come a time when violence is the answer. But that is not now. As for the cops who you say aren’t at fault.

The Nuremberg Trials established that I was only following orders is not an excuse. We tried. Convicted. And executed people who were only following orders.

In the Military we tell soldiers that following an illegal order is a crime. They could face repercussions for it.

We believe authority is not absolute. That just because someone in power says it or does it does not make it right. See Nixon.

Maybe I better explain that. The original crime was the break in. That crime was not ordered by Nixon. When Nixon found out his part of the crime was upon us. What he should have done is called the Attorney General and ordered an investigation. What he did was order the cover up.

History blames Nixon for Watergate. That is unfair. It should blame him for the cover up. Rightly so.

So back to our police. The ones you say are not to blame. They are to blame. They know what the Fourth Amendment says. They also know they can get around it. If it is illegal they are due in court they need an exception. A way to allow doing what they knew was wrong in the first place. That is not blameless.
 
“We know that the progressive democrats are all in on gun control and gun confiscation whenever they can get away with it.”

This is a lie.

Democrats have no desire to ‘confiscate’ guns.

The firearm regulatory measures Democrats advocate for are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence the Supreme Court having never invalidated any the those proposed measures.

Consequently, there is no disagreement concerning citizens’ Second and Fourth Amendment rights, the notion that there is disagreement is a lie; indeed, liberals are in agreement with Second Amendment case law and have been the most ardent defenders of the Fourth Amendment.

Many democrats, from Hillary to Pete Buttigieg, has often verbally supported confiscations, like of ARs, or even all semi automatic weapons.

All federal firearm legislation is totally illegal, as the feds can only legislate what is specifically authorized to them by the Constitution, and no firearm authority was ever legally granted to the federal government.

Warrantless searches and any seizure of legal property is illegal.
If there is grounds for thinking someone is dangerous, then you place them in custody and have them evaluated.
You do not break into their home and steal stuff.
 
Not a good idea Mike, warrant or no warrant if you resist with force then you probably gonna die. And frankly you should die IMHO for putting everyone involved in danger, the other people in your house and the cops that you shoot. It ain't their fault, why should one or more of them die at your hand for doing their job?

I see this scenario as similar to when a person resists arrest by the cops, uses or shows a weapon or what looks like a weapon, and gets himself shot. It doesn't have to be, STFU and do as you're told, don't make the situation worse than it has to be. If the cops did not have sufficient cause or reason then sue the bastards for a ton of money. That might be the best way to get rid of bad cops or bad cop practices, make it too costly to continue.

It IS their fault.
Cops who do what they are told, even though they know it is illegal, are the worst problem we have.
Suing cops is nearly impossible, because they have unlimited means of protection, and individuals do not.
 

Forum List

Back
Top