Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[RickD427]

Didn't SCOTUS just put the kibosh on welfare check crap.

Nope.

Methinks that you may be misunderstanding the decision, made last month, by the Supreme Court in Caniglia v Strom.

That case didn't do anything to change the police practice of "Welfare Checks."

What Caniglia did was to make very clear (as in a 9-0 decision) that LEO's could not apply the "Community Caretaking" doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of firearms from a home.

[cre8nhavoc]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/driver-ac...184634228.html

I wonder if the victims and their familes can sue Ford and hold them accountable. I mean, you can now do it with firearm companies and the truck in question wasn't used as it was intended. Same liberal logic, right?

[RickD427]

It started with a welfare check.
The police overstepped their bounds by extending the welfare check to using community caretaking consider for a warrantless search.

i was responding to rplaw's comment where he refers to 4th amendment violation of a client of his. I never said anything about 2A.

Caniglia covers using welfare check as a pretext for warrantless search and seizure.

Go back and read the case.

You correctly understand that officers initially went to the Caniglia home to conduct a "Welfare Check" after his wife had been unable to reach him. Officers conducted that check, located Mr. Caniglia, and arranged for him to be hospitalized.

That sequence of events ended the "Welfare Check." The Court found no fault with the manner in which the "Welfare Check" was conducted. There was no "extension" of the "Welfare Check." The Court analyzed the reentry into the home as a separate activity (please note that officers only initially "entered" the home as far as the porch to render aid to Mr. Caniglia)

The legal events that caused the Supreme Court to fang the officers all occurred after that point in time.

It's important to note that Mr. Caniglia argued that the both the entry to seize him, and the entry to seize the firearms violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court only found that the second entry (which was well into the interior of the home), and the one to seize the firearms, violated the Amendment.

Following the conclusion of the "Welfare Check", the officers elected to re-enter the home under the legal theory that the "Community Caretaker" doctrine would allow them to seize Mr. Caniglia's firearms presented a threat to public safety. In so doing, they relied upon an extension of the reasoning in Cady v Dombrowski where the court upheld the seizure of a firearm from a vehicle on what has later been term "Community Caretaking" grounds.

In the Caniglia decision, the Supreme Court did not throw out the "Community Caretaking" doctrine. It simply found that the doctrine was unreasonably applied to the (re)entry into Mr. Caniglia's home.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Go back and read the case.

You correctly understand that officers initially went to the Caniglia home to conduct a "Welfare Check" after his wife had been unable to reach him. Officers conducted that check, located Mr. Caniglia, and arranged for him to be hospitalized.

That sequence of events ended the "Welfare Check." The Court found no fault with the manner in which the "Welfare Check" was conducted. There was no "extension" of the "Welfare Check." The Court analyzed the reentry into the home as a separate activity (please note that officers only initially "entered" the home as far as the porch to render aid to Mr. Caniglia)

The legal events that caused the Supreme Court to fang the officers all occurred after that point in time.

It's important to note that Mr. Caniglia argued that the both the entry to seize him, and the entry to seize the firearms violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court only found that the second entry (which was well into the interior of the home), and the one to seize the firearms, violated the Amendment.

Following the conclusion of the "Welfare Check", the officers elected to re-enter the home under the legal theory that the "Community Caretaker" doctrine would allow them to seize Mr. Caniglia's firearms presented a threat to public safety. In so doing, they relied upon an extension of the reasoning in Cady v Dombrowski where the court upheld the seizure of a firearm from a vehicle on what has later been term "Community Caretaking" grounds.

In the Caniglia decision, the Supreme Court did not throw out the "Community Caretaking" doctrine. It simply found that the doctrine was unreasonably applied to the (re)entry into Mr. Caniglia's home.

Wasnt that car impounded. There seems to be a wide gulf between removing a firearm from w car in a police impound lot and breaking into someone's house to take their guns. The car was under control of the police while the house wasn't.

[RickD427]

Wasnt that car impounded. There seems to be a wide gulf between removing a firearm from w car in a police impound lot and breaking into someone's house to take their guns. The car was under control of the police while the house wasn't.

Your understanding is correct.

In Caniglia, the Supreme Court made a very clear distinction between the vehicle search in Cady and the residential search done in Caniglia. The key distinctions were that 1) A home has a greater expectation of privacy than a does a vehicle. and 2) Firearms left in a vehicle, in a storage lot, are at much greater risk of theft than are firearms secured in a home.

The Court didn't throw out the "Community Caretaker" doctrine. It simply found that it produced a "reasonable" seizure in the Cady case, and led to an "unreasonable" seizure in the Caniglia case.

[lastinline]

Your understanding is correct.

In Caniglia, the Supreme Court made a very clear distinction between the vehicle search in Cady and the residential search done in Caniglia. The key distinctions were that 1) A home has a greater expectation of privacy than a does a vehicle. and 2) Firearms left in a vehicle, in a storage lot, are at much greater risk of theft than are firearms secured in a home.

The Court didn't throw out the "Community Caretaker" doctrine. It simply found that it produced a "reasonable" seizure in the Cady case, and led to an "unreasonable" seizure in the Caniglia case.

Would it have made any practical difference if the firearms that were seized been in a securely locked safe, or in some other manner not available to the officers?

[John Browning]

What does any of this have to do with the progression of this case?

[RickD427]

Would it have made any practical difference if the firearms that were seized been in a securely locked safe, or in some other manner not available to the officers?

The way I read the case, it would have made no difference. The Court faulted the officers for making an "unreasonable" entry into the residence for the purpose of locating the firearms, and that occurred even before they actually located the firearms.

[abinsinia]

06/21/2021 13 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and RYAN D. NELSON): The motion by the State of Arizona, et al. (Docket Entry No. [9]-1) for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is granted. The clerk will file the amicus brief (Docket Entry No. [9]-2). The district court’s June 4, 2021 order and judgment are stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004. The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court. Briefing in this appeal is stayed. Within 14 days of this court’s decision in Rupp v. Bonta, the parties shall file a status report and may request appropriate relief. [12149589] (AF) [Entered: 06/21/2021 02:47 PM]

July 4th party canceled ?

[pacrat]

Would it have made any practical difference if the firearms that were seized been in a securely locked safe, or in some other manner not available to the officers?

The way I read the case, it would have made no difference. The Court faulted the officers for making an "unreasonable" entry into the residence for the purpose of locating the firearms, and that occurred even before they actually located the firearms.

Actually, Caniglia's firearms were securely locked in a safe. The officers lied to the Mrs. And told her that her husband had given them permission to take his guns. And conned her into opening the safe.

As well as the "unreasonable" entry that Rick mentions. Since that occurred while Caniglia was already in voluntary custody at the time.

[rplaw]

some response.

Stayed pending Rupp? What the heck?

[abinsinia]

Stayed pending Rupp? What the heck?

and Rupp is stayed pending Duncan.

[AbrahamBurden]

July 4th party canceled ?

Where did you find this? Didn't see any mention of it on FPC's page for Miller v. Bonta.

[abinsinia]

Where did you find this? Didn't see any mention of it on FPC's page for Miller v. Bonta.

It was pulled off pacer.gov .. pacer is where the documents are filed.

[CandG]

July 4th party canceled ?

I'm really not sure why so many people here were getting their hopes up for a stay denial from the 9th. I mean, I'm sometimes more optimistic than most, but that was a loony amount of optimism.