Warrantless search case involving gun confiscation
- Thread starter raimius
- Start date
4thAmendmentLawyer
Inactive
SCOTUS has ruled on this case. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion. Vote was 9 to zero.
The Man's rights were violated.
Its my hope this precedence provides a foundation for further test cases regarding Red Flag laws.
A search should reveal a previous thread where we discussed Red Flag laws at length.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...e-without-a-warrant/ar-BB1gPxg6?ocid=msedgntp
The Man's rights were violated.
Its my hope this precedence provides a foundation for further test cases regarding Red Flag laws.
A search should reveal a previous thread where we discussed Red Flag laws at length.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...e-without-a-warrant/ar-BB1gPxg6?ocid=msedgntp
Good deal!
Looks like the claim was that the search/confiscation was done in the interest of "community caretaking" and the court addressed that by basically saying that no, it wasn't.
They appear to have just taken it as a given that the wife's "permission" based on being misled by the police did not eliminate the need for a warrant.
That's a very good outcome.
Looks like the claim was that the search/confiscation was done in the interest of "community caretaking" and the court addressed that by basically saying that no, it wasn't.
They appear to have just taken it as a given that the wife's "permission" based on being misled by the police did not eliminate the need for a warrant.
That's a very good outcome.
IMO, the opinion has little to do with gun rights. It was based entirely on the 4th Amendment right to be secure from warrantless searches at home, with a few very narrow exceptions. The Court took pains to point out there was no red flag statute at issue and no law invoked authorizing an involuntary mental exam. That’s why the vote was 9-0.
Uh... no.
The Court took great pains to point out that while Red Flag was not addressed by this specific ruling at this time it was related, "...Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag”
laws that somebStates 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.
They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before
firearms may be seized. 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.
The Court took great pains to point out that while Red Flag was not addressed by this specific ruling at this time it was related, "...Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag”
laws that somebStates 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.
They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before
firearms may be seized. 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.
mehavey said:
The connection to firearm possession issues is modest.
The issue is whether the state needs a warrant to enter your home under the circumstances described. Had the POs entered the home with no emergency present, lied to the wife and taken the man's prescription medications while he was under a coerced medical observation, you'd have the same 4th Am. issues.
RFLs don't only or even primarily violate the 2d Am. They are a framework that give the state the power to act against a person and his property without due process (though a RFL temporary order and warrant both involve an application granted without the target present, at least a warrant involves an allegation of an indication of a crime having been committed).
That RFLs may violate the 4th Am. doesn't mean that this 4th Am. case turns on the things being confiscated being guns.
One of the reasons I resist the sense that 2d Am. protection efforts should focus only on that single issue is that the rights we describe separately are like legs on a table. Take away your protections against seizure, and what does your 2d Am. right really mean? Take away your right to speak against gun owner restrictions or give money to candidates who will speak for you, and what future does your 2d Am. right have? Protecting the zone of behavior in which the state has no authority tends to re-enforce each of the borders of the entire zone.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In the case under discussion, I don't think the man was under a "coerced" medical observation. While he was taken away in an ambulance (according to the information available), he was not under a court-ordered mental health evaluation hold. Therefore, under the law, I believe that his medical observation would be classified as voluntary, even though the cops no doubt pressured him into "volunteering."zukiphile said:
Agreed. In fact, we need to remember that the Bill of Rights was introduced as a package. There were originally twelve, of which ten were initially ratified. One of the other two did eventually become an amendment, many, manty years later. The rights set forth in the Bill of Rights should, IMHO, be viewed as a package.zukiphile said:
MeHavey—-the part of the case you quote makes the point red flag laws were NOT part of the case. The Court wanted to make that clear, without shutting the door to future consideration of seizures pursuant to red flag laws. And some may be constitutional while others may not, depending upon how much due process each provides.
BTW, I am a lawyer with more than a little appellate experience.
BTW, I am a lawyer with more than a little appellate experience.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I fail to see any relationship to red flag laws. The case did not involve a "red flag" law, an involuntary commitment, or even an involuntary observation. In fact, the case didn't involve any court orders whatsoever. How is there any relationship to red flag laws?mehavey said:
AB said:
Both scenarios involves a state act without hearing or any suspicion of a crime having occurred, and no circumstance that would make applying for a warrant impractical. Certainly they are also distinguishable.
I see the court's language on this as a forecast or suggestion that this case may appear as authority in a RFL challenge.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I think we may agree in principle, but I disagree in specifics. My state happens to have one of those accursed "red flag" laws. I think ours is fairly typical of those I have read about. Under the "red flag" law, there IS a hearing, and there IS a court order (which, I submit, is functionally equivalent to a warrant) to confiscate firearms. The problem is that the subject of the order (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") is not notified of the hearing or afforded an opportunity to be heard or to present a defense.zukiphile said:
The legislature seems to want us to believe that the victim of these red flag laws isn't being deprived of due process because he/she/it will have an opportunity within a specified period AFTER the confiscation to go before the court and attempt to prove that he/she/it isn't a depraved maniac and a threat to humanity, and that his/her/its firearms therefore should be returned.
My view (and I don't think I'm alone in this) is that this process turns the entire concept of "due process" inside out and upside down. And what makes these laws worse is that -- in most states, anyway -- they are unnecessary. My state already had laws on the books that could be (and had been, many times) used to take guns away from people who shouldn't have had them. And the old laws didn't trample on any reasonable notion of due process.
My state wasn't satisfied with trampling on due process. They enacted the red flag law I think two years ago (might have been three), and this year they have already revised it -- and not to be more favorable to the victim of the order. No, they made it even easier for people to abuse the red flag law by filing a fraudulent complaint.
AB said:
The difference I see that distinguishes a warrant from a RFL seizure order is that the warrant requires an allegation of probable cause that a crime has occurred. An RFL seizure order revolves around an ex parte application about a applicant's misgivings about future conduct. That indicates to me that there is no probable cause that would have been sufficient for a warrant in the RFL initial hearing.
I see the probable cause standard of allegation lacking in both warrantless seizures that fit no recognized exceptions and RFLs as the common thread that could support a 4th Am. challenge to an RFL order.
Spats McGee
Administrator
This is not a RFL case, but I read Alito's concurrence as (almost?) inviting a RFL challenge.
