Warrantless search case involving gun confiscation

A motor vehicle stuck or abandoned on the side of a road constitutes an immediate hazard. I wasn't aware of this exception to the 4th Amendment, but in that context it makes some sense.

In this case, it doesn't make any sense. Edward had been removed from the home, so he was separated from the guns. If the police believed there was a reason/need to confiscate the guns, they had plenty of time to seek and obtain a court order and search warrant to do that.

The problem is that, if they lied to the man's wife, they probably would have lied to the judge in their application for the warrant. As outrageous as this seizure was, I am equally outraged that the police felt it necessary and proper to lie as I am outraged over the actual warrantless search and seizure. This was in Rhode Island, for Pete's sake. Rhode Island isn't very friendly to firearms rights. The cops would have had no problem getting a warrant even without lying. That they chose not to do so is (IMHO) inexcusable.
 
The lie is odious, but I don't think that's the central issue in the case. POs lie to people routinely. The issue is the warrantless search and seizure for no good reason.

The Ct of App. seems to have solidified an exception to the 4th Am. that swallows the protection completely. From the article:

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added.
Click to expand...

Elbow room to take appropriate action? No free person should be subject to that.
 
Not mentioned at all in the story, but I wonder if the police who lied to seize property were disciplined? I have my doubts...
 
zukiphile said:
The lie is odious, but I don't think that's the central issue in the case. POs lie to people routinely. The issue is the warrantless search and seizure for no good reason.

The Ct of App. seems to have solidified an exception to the 4th Am. that swallows the protection completely. From the article:

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added.
Click to expand...
Elbow room to take appropriate action? No free person should be subject to that.
Click to expand...
I agree that the case hinges on the warrantless search and seizure, not the lie. And I don't mean to play down the importance of that. It's just that I think police officers lying is a pretty serious affront to common sense and common decency as well.

With regard to the case, and the bit about giving police "elbow room" to act appropriately (??) in cases of emergency, my question is: "What emergency?"

The guy was in a hospital, separated from his wife and from his guns. If they felt that it was necessary to confiscate the guns, they had ample time and opportunity to find a judge, explain the situation to him, and get a warrant. THERE WAS NO "EMERGENCY." The exception should not apply.
 
The lie is odious, but I don't think that's the central issue in the case.
POs lie to people routinely. The issue is the warrantless search
Click to expand...
However the lie was what permitted the Search w/o warrant to go forward.
Absent that lie, the wife would [presumably] not have permitted the search.

Q: On what authority did you Search the house?
Answer: The wife gave us permission.

Q: Why did the wife give her permission?
Answer: They lied, and told her they had a warrant.

Observation:
The authority of her permission is void, as it was based upon a lie that warrant authority existed.
Observation:
Absent the authority from the wife, and absent a valid Serach warrant, the Search itself is void.


.
 
Last edited:
"Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception."

This is a good case to bring before the supreme court. It will definitely serve as a canary in the coal mine to determine if the current court will choose citizen's rights over government over-reach under the guise of "public safety".

With regard to the case, and the bit about giving police "elbow room" to act appropriately (??) in cases of emergency, my question is: "What emergency?"

The guy was in a hospital, separated from his wife and from his guns. If they felt that it was necessary to confiscate the guns, they had ample time and opportunity to find a judge, explain the situation to him, and get a warrant. THERE WAS NO "EMERGENCY." The exception should not apply.
Click to expand...
That's a really good point that appears to be glossed over completely.
 
Last edited:
A good read and test case. The cops of course gained “consent” from the wife, apparently by falsely informing her that the husband also consented. I’m not a fan of strong armed policing. That’s exactly what this was. Granted, it’s probably not smart to lay a gun on the table while arguing with the wife. It also doesn’t necessarily warrant this manner of government intrusion. At least the respondent eventually got his firearms back.
 
I agree that the case hinges on the warrantless search and seizure, not the lie. And I don't mean to play down the importance of that. It's just that I think police officers lying is a pretty serious affront to common sense and common decency as well.
Click to expand...

Although I agree that cops shouldn't lie , the SCOTUS ruled LEO can lie correct ? They lie in interrogations all the time "we have a wittiness , your DNA is on the weapon , your friend said you were the one" etc etc . Not sure in this context it's applicable but as much as I hate it , it's legal for the police to lie to a suspect .
 
Again:

- Why did the wife consent to let the police into the house?
ANS: Because they lied and told her they had a warrant

- Would a warantless have taken taken place w/o the lie ?
ANS: It is presumed the wife would have refused permission.

Search was illegal, evidence gained was void.

To claim the lie was irrelevant opens up such a chasm of "police can lie and sidestep the 4th Amendment" as to be breathtaking.
 
^mehavey may be quite right now that I’ve thought about it. Consent must be free and voluntary, it cannot be coerced. Now advising someone of a legally viable alternative isn’t coercion. “If you don’t consent, and that’s your right, I will apply for a search warrant and if it issued I will search anyway.” Phrasing it that was is appropriate and ruled to not be coerced consent. Outright lies, especially depending on how they were presented, will likely not be viewed favorably. Matching wits in an interrogation room is a little different than strong arming your way into someone’s house on shaky consent. And I don’t really care to tell blatant lies in interrogation. There are better ways to get info.
 
I don't think it matters. Cops are allowed to lie in the course of an investigation.

Question: Would the killer have confessed if officers had not lied about having his DNA on the murder weapon?
ANS: It is presumed that he would not have confessed.

Question: Would the criminal come to the police if they had not told him he had won a prize and told him where to come pick it up?
ANS: It is presumed that the criminal would not have surrendered himself to police.

If a person gives up their right to not self-incriminate based on a lie, it doesn't matter.
If a person gives permission to the cops to search based on a lie, it doesn't matter.

Not saying that's a good thing or that it's the way it should be. But it seems to be the way it is.

In other words, the lie seems to be irrelevant to the legality of the search not because it's a good thing but because it's a legal thing.
 
Again -- voluntary confession is one thing. Not protected under 4A
Absent consent however, a warrant is explicitly required for Search & Seizure
(save in "exigent circumstance" -- which no one is claiming)

If a cop can lie... and say a Constitutional requirement is satisfied when in
fact it it not... to then proceed to violate that Constitutional protection...
... then all bets are off.

Might as well toss 4A out in the trash.

But we'll see .....
 
mehavey said:
But it does get worse...
https://www.law.com/thelegalintellig...20210227150757

"Community Caretaking" could literally open the floodgates.
Click to expand...
Can't read your link without joining -- which I'm not going to do to read one article.

The amicus brief I linked makes clear that broadening the exception allowed under "community caretaking" will effectively invalidate the 4th Amendment entirely. It also points out several flaws and errors in the circuit court's reasoning.
 
Interesting.... the link came right up w/o a problem.
But you are correctly in that CC as it will evolve effectively drops the 4th from the document.
 
Not my argument. That was the reasoning of the court in the brief I posted a link to -- but I certainly agree with it.

While the issue presented — whether the
“community caretaking” exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirements is limited to
vehicles or is expanded to homes — may seem
reasonably discrete, it is not. On one level, this Court
will decide whether Americans will continue to have
meaningful Fourth Amendment protection in their
own home or sacrifice it on the altar of the modern
state. But on a grander level, the issue is how the
Fourth Amendment is to be understood and applied.
An originality approach would examine the text and
original public meaning of the Amendment. The First
Circuit ignored the text, never considered the
Amendment’s original public meaning, and made its
decision on what seemed “reasonable” to modern
judges based on balancing. For many reasons, the
First Circuit’s decision cannot be allowed to stand.
Click to expand...

For a half century, the Fourth Amendment was largely understood
as a protection of privacy. However, in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012),
and Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), this Court re-established the original
basis of the Fourth Amendment as the protection of property. As Justice Scalia explained:

The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its
close connection to property, since otherwise it
would have referred simply to “the right of the
people to be secure against unreasonable
searches and seizures”; the phrase “in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects” would
have been superfluous. [Jones at 405.]​

Although Cady was decided four decades before
Jones, the Cady Court addressed the property principle. The Cady
Court justified the warrantless search in large part because the police had exercised a
significant degree of custody and control over Cady’s
automobile before it was searched. In evaluating the
search of the car, the Court identified “two factual
considerations [that] deserve emphasis,” the first of
which was:

the police had exercised a form of
custody or control over the 1967 Thunderbird.
Respondent’s vehicle was disabled as a result
of the accident, and constituted a nuisance
along the highway. Respondent, being
intoxicated (and later comatose), could not
make arrangements to have the vehicle towed
and stored. At the direction of the police,
and for elemental reasons of safety, the
automobile was towed to a private garage....
[Cady at 442-43 (emphasis added).]​
...
The Cady
Court stressed the distinction which the
court below crushed. “‘[F]or the purposes of the Fourth
Amendment there is a constitutional difference
between houses and cars.’” Cady at 439 (citations
omitted). And the Cady Court relied on that
distinction:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top