Red Flag, meet brick wall

[biodsl]

Hallelujah! 9-0 decision.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that warrantless gun confiscation from Americans’ homes is unconstitutional, voting unanimously on the side of a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/05...-9-0-vote/

[grayfox]

This is one we've been waiting for!!!!
A great signal to would-be gun grabbers...
And to that nearby (Boston) ATF office!!!

[grayfox]

(emphasis added) Justice Thomas wrote for the court.
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 constitutionallydifferent, 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, likerendering 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.

[LRRPF52]

This wasn’t about Red Flag “laws”, but warrantless search and seizure:

In Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion for the ruling in which he addressed existing “red flag” laws that also call into question Fourth Amendment rights.

“This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons,” Alito wrote.

“They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized,” he continued. “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”

In March, the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s ruling, arguing the actions taken by law enforcement to confiscate the petitioner’s firearms without a warrant were “reasonable.”

[biodsl]

So I jumped the gun. Let me see if I understand; in this case, the police took the weapons without a court involved in the process? The wife says "I'm afraid he'll hurt himself" and the police take the weapons without a judicial review or court order? I guess it is difficult to hire good officers today.

[grayfox]

It's not totally about red flag laws... true. But that was Alito's sole opinion, and a bit (I think) of Kavanaugh. Just that the specific issue hasn't come up yet, in their 2 opinions.
But I think it does give some pause to purveyors of those laws... their probable response will be to craft their state etc laws more strictly in order to keep it, in their minds. They no longer have a blank check to do as they please in the area.

I do see in Thomas', and in Kav's, writeups that imminent injury is necessary... and I would add that some states are now allowing "assisted" suicide, and "right to die", in other words a person has the "right" to commit suicide. If that is true, then to "stop" a suicide would not be legitimate.

[PVBoom]

Awesome news.

[StoneHendge]

Sounds like Alito extended an open invitation to bring a Red Flag law before the court, although it depends on the definition of "may" used both times he uses the word (I.e., "might" vs. "can"). What a language we have!

[grayfox]

There is power in words.
I don't want to read too much into this or sound overly hopeful, but with Thomas writing the court opinion, it being 9-0, and all the libs signed on to protect the 4th... that was a strongly worded, short and sweet opinion against warrantless searches.
Not to mention that the police lied to his wife, saying he agreed to the search when he specifically disagreed with it.
We could have wound up with a lot weaker, or worse, opinion, you know.

Thank you SCOTUS.

[LRRPF52]

So I jumped the gun. Let me see if I understand; in this case, the police took the weapons without a court involved in the process? The wife says "I'm afraid he'll hurt himself" and the police take the weapons without a judicial review or court order? I guess it is difficult to hire good officers today.

The police removed the man from the residence, then lied to the wife saying that he gave them permission to search.

That’s how you get even activist liberal judges voting 9-0, because it opens the door for other cases where a fishing expedition is launched with lies. That’s my take of this anyway, after a brief read.

ETA: Beat above by grayfox