From a number of readers, the SCOTUS has placed limits on the scope of power police may take, while protecting the fourth amendment.
David Codrea has snipped the major details (this isn’t a long ruling).
Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4. 953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.
This is also being discussed at Ammoland here and here, and GOA is calling this a huge victory.
No doubt it is, and this is the right decision. But some of the justices blather on and on about why they think it was okay to vote the way they did, which vote seems for all the wrong reasons.
I saw the decision, and looked immediately to see what Justice Clarence Thomas said. He matters. The rest of them are complete frauds and what they have to say matters no more to me than when a dog barks.
Now. Let’s see how much this decision actually has an effect in the real life behavior of police. As for the so-called “community caretaker” issue, that’s a myth fabricated out of whole cloth, with no basis in the law, and in complete contradiction with prior decisions such as Castle Rock versus Gonzales, Warren versus D.C., and DeShaney versus Winnebago County.
Only an idiot would believe in something like the “community caretaker” foolishness. But the SCOTUS seems to be consumed with the notion – except for Justice Thomas.
This specific instance also highlights the continuing threat of so-called extreme risk protection orders. Those come with warrants, while this case dealt with actions taken without a warrant.
Warrants are handed out like candy by judges.