Page 35 - TPA Journal Sept Oct 2021

[discussion of appeal contesting the guilty plea is Petitioner sued, claiming that respondents violated the
omitted.] Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and
seized him and his firearms without a warrant. The
For all these reasons, we AFFIRM. District Court granted summary judgment to
respondents, and the First Circuit affirmed solely on the
U.S. v. Avalos-Sanchez, No. 19-40668, 5th Cir., Sept. ground that the decision to remove petitioner and his
11th, 2020. firearms from the premises fell within a “community
******************************************** caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement.
Citing this Court’s statement in Cady that police
officers often have noncriminal reasons to interact with
SEARCH AND SEIZURE, Firearm in the home. motorists on “public highways,” 413 U. S., at 441, the
Caretaker function. First Circuit extrapolated a freestanding community-
caretaking exception that applies to both cars and
Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search homes. Accordingly, the First Circuit saw no need to
of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did consider whether anyone had consented to respondents’
not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this actions; whether these actions were justified by
conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who “exigent circumstances”; or whether any state law
patrol the “public highways” are often called to permitted this kind of mental-health intervention. All
discharge noncriminal community caretaking that mattered was that respondents’ efforts to protect
functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or petitioner and those around him were “distinct from
investigating accidents. The question today is whether ‘the normal work of criminal investigation,’” fell
Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking” duties “within the realm of reason,” and generally tracked
creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless what the court viewed to be “sound police procedure.”
searches and seizures in the home. It does not.
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the
During an argument with his wife at their Rhode Island people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
home, Edward Caniglia (petitioner) retrieved a handgun effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and The “‘very core’” of this guarantee is “‘the right of a
asked his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” man to retreat into his own home and there be free from
She declined, and instead left to spend the night at a unreasonable governmental intrusion.’”
hotel. The next morning, when petitioner’s wife
discovered that she could not reach him by telephone, To be sure, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all
she called the police (respondents) to request a welfare unwelcome intrusions “on private property,” ibid.—
check. only “unreasonable” ones. We have thus recognized a
few permissible invasions of the home and its curtilage.
Respondents accompanied petitioner’s wife to the Perhaps most familiar, for example, are searches and
home, where they encountered petitioner on the porch. seizures pursuant to a valid warrant. We have also held
Petitioner spoke with respondents and confirmed his that law enforcement officers may enter private
wife’s account of the argument, but denied that he was property without a warrant when certain exigent
suicidal. Respondents, however, thought that petitioner circumstances exist, including the need to “‘render
posed a risk to himself or others. They called an emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to
ambulance, and petitioner agreed to go to the hospital protect an occupant from imminent injury.’” And, of
for a psychiatric evaluation— but only after respondents course, officers may generally take actions that “‘any
allegedly promised not to confiscate his firearms. Once private citizen might do’” without fear of liability.
the ambulance had taken petitioner away, however,
respondents seized the weapons. Guided by petitioner’s The First Circuit’s “community caretaking” rule,
wife—whom they allegedly misinformed about his however, goes beyond anything this Court has
wishes—respondents entered the home and took two recognized. The decision below assumed that
handguns. respondents lacked a warrant or consent, and it

Sept./Oct. 2021 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 31