Caniglia v. Strom (20-157)

argument 20-157

Caniglia v. Strom

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 42m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Fourth Amendment rule on warrantless home entry and seizures?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty one fifty seven Canelia versus Strom. Mr Voretzki?

Unknown 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Fourth Amendment recognizes the sanctity of the home by drawing a firm line at the door. The government cannot cross that line without a warrant unless there is consent or exigent circumstances. Here there was neither. Respondents' warrantless seizure of petitioner from his home and their subsequent seizures of his lawfully possessed guns from his bedroom and garage violated the Fourth Amendment. The First Circuit tried to get around the warrant requirement by creating a new exception based on Katie. But Katie involved a standardized search of a car in police custody. It doesn't grant a license for intruding the home. Quite the opposite. Nearly every page of the court's decision relies on the constitutional differences between cars and houses.

Unknown 0:57

Respondents in the United States take a different tack. They claim that the warrant requirement isn't even implicated when officers act for non investigatory reasons. But in case after case, the Court has consistently applied the warrant requirement to homes, regardless of the government's purpose. including when public health or safety is at stake. Moreover, the line between investigatory and non investigatory actions is hardly clear. Nearly every criminal violation has public safety implications, so dispensing with the warrant requirement, whenever police can point to a health or safety motive, would eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. Finally, there's no good reason to create the sweeping new rule that respondents ask for.

Unknown 1:37

Where there is a true emergency or where people ask to be helped Existing law already allows an exception to the warrant requirement. Many states also provide a number of ways for the government to address problems while respecting the Fourth Amendment, including red flag laws and involuntary commitment procedures. But absent consent or exigent circumstances. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow officers to conduct searches or seizures in the home pursuant only to their own discretion. I'd be happy to answer the court's question.

John G. Roberts 2:07

Uh Mr. Doretsky, uh let's say the police get a call, it's eight o'clock at night. Uh the person says they're, you know, elderly neighbor, they'd invited her to dinner at six, it's eight o'clock. Uh she's never late for anything. She's not answering the phone. They haven't seen her leave the house. Uh they're worried. They asked the police if they could come over and check it out. The police do that. They go onto the property. Uh they can't see much through the windows, but the back door is open. Um they go in. Um she's not there, but she comes back uh and says, uh, what are you doing here? She sues her sues them under nineteen eighty three for violating her fourth amendment uh fourth amendment rights. Does she win?

Unknown 2:51

I I think in that situation, uh uh the you'd have to analyze whether the police had an objective basis for believing that there was emergency there. Well go ahead and

John G. Roberts 2:59

analyze that. I've given you all the facts. Do they have an objective basis because the neighbors uh says she hasn't uh They haven't seen her all day. She didn't come over for dinner. Uh she's never late. Uh is that enough?

Unknown 3:12

No, I think that that alone would not be enough. I think you would need some additional fact to suggest that there was a true emergency and that there was no other alternative for the police but to go in. There are other things they could that can be done in that situation. You can call another family member, perhaps we're Well, I mean come on, yes

John G. Roberts 3:28

assume they they their family members aren't answering the phone either. Uh y you know the neighbors are saying uh she's an elderly woman, it's uh she never late, she's late, uh uh they're not able to reach her by phone, they don't know who else to call. The the police are violating the constitution because they walk in the back door to make sure, you know, she's not lying on uh lying on the floor.

Unknown 3:52

I think absence absent either consent or some objectively reasonable indication of an emergency, which I don't think those facts establish, the police can't just go into somebody's house without a warrant.