Caniglia v. Strom
United States Supreme Court
141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
During an argument, Edward Caniglia (plaintiff) placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked his wife to shoot him. Mrs. Caniglia refused and left the home for the night. The next morning, Mrs. Caniglia was unable to contact Edward. Mrs. Caniglia then requested that police officers (defendants) accompany her to the Caniglias’ home to conduct a welfare check on Edward. Mrs. Caniglia and the police officers found Edward on the porch, unharmed. Edward stated he was not suicidal but agreed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation after police allegedly promised not to confiscate his firearms. The police believed Edward was a risk to himself and others. Mrs. Caniglia guided police into the home, after allegedly being misinformed regarding Edward’s wishes, and allowed police to seize Edward’s firearms. Edward sued the police officers, arguing that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering the home and seizing both Edward and his firearms without a warrant. The police officers did not prove they had consent and forfeited the point regarding whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search and seizure. It was undisputed that the police did not have a warrant. The First Circuit held that the police were authorized to enter the home without a warrant pursuant to the officers’ community-caretaking powers. Edward appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
