LEADERSHIP CHIEF COUNSEL ’ S CORNER
Lessons From Caniglia v . Strom
We have previously examined the public ’ s desire for police officers to assist the mentally ill , homeless , domestic violence victims , and others in contexts that do not directly involve the investigation of crimes or the enforcement of criminal laws . With a genuine intent to “ protect and serve ,” police officers have undertaken these helpful functions under the loose umbrella of “ community caretaking .”
Even as the public has increasingly expected the police to perform “ community caretaking ” functions in a variety of contexts , the boundaries of an officer ’ s authority under the Constitution have not expanded . This was made clear by a decision that the U . S . Supreme Court issued in May of this year , where the Court held that police cannot justify a warrantless entry into a home based on their “ community caretaking ” duties . The case , Caniglia v . Strom , arose from an argument that 68-year-old Edward Caniglia had with his wife in their Cranston , Rhode Island home . When the argument escalated , Caniglia went into his bedroom and retrieved an unloaded handgun .
12 SUMMER . 2021
Richard A . Carothers General Counsel Carothers & Mitchell , LLC
Then , a dramatic gesture , he placed the gun on the dining room table and said to his wife , “ why don ’ t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery ?” After some further squabbling , his wife left and spent the night at a hotel . When she was unable to reach her husband by phone the following morning , she called the police to request a welfare check .
The responding officers encountered Caniglia on the back deck of the home and urged him to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation . Caniglia assured the officers that he would never commit suicide , and explained that his “ just shoot me ” comment was in exasperation over the couple ’ s argument . Nevertheless , he went along with the evaluation on the condition that the officers not confiscate his firearms . But once Caniglia left with medical personnel , the officers entered the home and seized his weapons . Caniglia sued , claiming that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment by entering his home without a warrant and seizing his guns .
The officers did not contend that their entry into the home was justified by consent or exigent circumstances . Instead , they argued that the entry was proper based on their general “ community caretaking ” duties . The District Court found that the officers ’ actions were reasonable and agreed that the community caretaking exception justified the warrantless entry . The First Circuit affirmed , emphasizing the “ special role that police officers play in our society .” Caniglia v . Strom , 953 F . 3d 112 , 124 ( 1st Cir . 2020 ). But the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the First Circuit ’ s decision and flatly rejected the lower courts ’ application of the “ community caretaking ” doctrine to homes . Caniglia v . Strom , 141 S . Ct . 1596 , 1600 ( 2021 ). Yet in doing so , the Court left intact its existing precedent on warrantless entry and exigent circumstances .
The Warrant Requirement and its Recognized Exceptions The Fourth Amendment protects “[ t ] he right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures .” The “ very core ” of the Fourth Amendment is “ the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable