Supreme Court Declines (Forcefully!) to Extend Police "Caretaking" to the Home

[Averageman]

Just saying,
It ain't white folks calling the police on black folks in black neighborhoods.

[ViniVidivici]

I want to clarify that is not sarcasm. Seriously STOP CALLING THE POLICE.

Abso-fukkin-lutely, been our plan for quite some time now...

[sgtrock82]

The court took a step in the right direction.

The original plaintiff is a freaking retard though. He ALMOST deserves the muck he has been drug through. One doesn't have an argument with ones spouse and even mention "gun" let alone go actually fetch one to make some lame dramatic point.



Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk

[SteyrAUG]

Stop calling the goddamn police and figure it out for yourselves

I ordered extra cheese on my pizza and didn't get it but I was charged for extra cheese. I'm calling 911 right now. That's theft and that's the job of the police.

[BoringGuy45]

I ordered extra cheese on my pizza and didn't get it but I was charged for extra cheese. I'm calling 911 right now. That's theft and that's the job of the police.

If only you were exaggerating...

[26 Inf]

I think it might do some of you well to actually read the decision.

What the police did was so far out of bounds I'm embarrassed that it went to the Supreme Court.

The decision doesn't overturn Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (a destruction of evidence case). or the myriad of other cases which address exigent circumstances justifying warrant-less searches.

So, IMO, much ado about nothing, except piss poor search and seizure training.

[seb5]

I'm questioning whether this has really ANY bearing on how police do thier business, other than agreeing that it's crappy 4th training.

This is a civil case, not criminal, and turns upon the police promising not to sieze his guns, if he consented to a psychiatric eval, and then not returning them. Very strange...............

But I'll also add that I'm glad for the affirmation of our 4th as it's almost as important as the 2nd to me.

[Coal Dragger]

I’d agree but the fact the Biden Administration was pushing hard in favor of police being able to do this kind of shit is telling.

[seb5]

I’d agree but the fact the Biden Administration was pushing hard in favor of police being able to do this kind of shit is telling.

Yea which is scary as many LEO's may think he's supporting them, but it's just the opposite IMO. Pretty much anytime the Biden admin says they're supporting law enforcement, the LEO's better be ready for the reach around.

[glocktogo]

I think it might do some of you well to actually read the decision.

What the police did was so far out of bounds I'm embarrassed that it went to the Supreme Court.

The decision doesn't overturn Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (a destruction of evidence case). or the myriad of other cases which address exigent circumstances justifying warrant-less searches.

So, IMO, much ado about nothing, except piss poor search and seizure training.

I'm questioning whether this has really ANY bearing on how police do thier business, other than agreeing that it's crappy 4th training.

This is a civil case, not criminal, and turns upon the police promising not to sieze his guns, if he consented to a psychiatric eval, and then not returning them. Very strange...............

But I'll also add that I'm glad for the affirmation of our 4th as it's almost as important as the 2nd to me.

Perhaps, but it gives cause to challenge so-called "Red Flag" laws. Even Alito alluded to that specifically:

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court is “properly reject[ing] the broad ‘community caretaking’ theory.” At the same time, he noted that the case implicates “another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some States are now enacting.”

Such laws, he wrote, “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.” Although this particular decision does not address those issues, “provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.”

My constant condemnation of so-called "Red Flag" laws is their abject lack of Due Process as written. Absent any evidence of a crime having been committed, or any adjudication of mental defect, they authorize the seizure of private property and removal of a person's right to keep and bear arms. They are abhorrent in that they single-handedly violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments in one fell swoop. As such they should be held to strict scrutiny on all points and ruled unconstitutional on their face.

If a government wants to remove a person's rights because they're a threat, then they need to do the work to do it right. There's no sound justification to do it any other way.