Supreme Court Considering Whether “Community Caretaking” Allows Warrantless Home Entry
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2012. Mr. Heelan represents federal personnel across the Executive Branch, including career senior executives, law enforcement officers, foreign service officers, intelligence officers, and agencies in matters of federal personnel and employment law.
The Supreme Court last week heard oral argument on whether the “community caretaking” exception allows law enforcement to enter a home for the purposes of the occupant’s health and safety.
Edward and Kim Caniglia, a married couple of 22 years, had an argument inside their Rhode Island home. Eventually, Edward put an unloaded gun on a table and told his wife, “why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.” When Kim threatened to call 911, Edward left their home and she went to spend the night at a motel.
The next day, Kim told local police that she was worried Edward could be suicidal. Officers escorted Kim back home, where they spoke with Edward outside the house while she waited in the car. After talking with Edward, officers believed there was a risk he would harm himself. After the officers told Edward they would not take his two handguns if he went with them, he agreed to go with them a local hospital.
While Edward was at the hospital, police entered the Caniglias’ home to seize Edward’s guns. The officers told Kim that Edward had consented to their confiscating his guns. She then led the officers to the weapons, which they then seized. Several days later, Kim went to the police station to retrieve the guns, but officers refused her request. A month later, Edward went to the police station with the same request. Again, the officers refused.
Edward subsequently filed a Section 1983 claim against the city and the individual officers for violating his Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The federal District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Second and Fourth Amendment claims. Edward appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit distilled Edward’s appeal to a single legal question: whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the Caniglias’ home and the resulting seizures. The First Circuit answered the question, “Yes.” At that time in May 2020, FEDagent reported in detail on the First Circuit’s decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted Edward’s petition for a writ of certiorari to address the “community caretaking” question.
Last week, justices heard arguments on Caniglia v. Strom and openly struggled with the issue of when law enforcement can enter a home without a warrant for the purposes of checking on an occupant’s health or safety. Some justices worried that ruling in Edward’s favor would create legal obstacles for law enforcement to respond quickly to reports about imminent or continuing harm to the people inside. Those considerations were balanced against the traditional view that the home is off-limits to law enforcement without a warrant.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Edward’s attorney whether law enforcement could intervene and enter a home where there is a reported threat of suicide. The attorney did not directly answer the question and, instead, said that the Fourth Amendment’s exigent circumstances exception might allow home entry in Justice Kavanaugh’s hypothetical circumstance.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether law enforcement could enter a home after receiving a call about an elderly person who failed to show up for dinner at a neighbor’s house, “she’s never late for anything, she’s not answering the phone, they haven’t seen her leave the house.” Can police enter the elderly neighbor’s home? “No,” Edward’s attorney answered, not under the “community caretaker” exception.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked, “Where in the Fourth Amendment is a wellness check precluded?” Edward’s attorney said that wellness checks conducted at the door of a home were permitted, but that the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless entry into a home without consent or exigent circumstances.
During argument from the defendant city’s attorney, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether police could enter a home to break up a gathering of unmasked people for coronavirus concerns, where the gathering did not violate any law. The city attorney answered, “If they just go in and disperse the crowd, I think that fits within the community caretaking” exception.
The Court then asked questions of the Department of Justice, who argued in support of police having the right to make the kinds of wellness checks the justices were asking about. DOJ counsel said, “there is no warrant process in a lot of these non-investigatory situations, from welfare checks on elderly residents to intervention in current suicide threats…if someone is at risk of serious harm, and it’s reasonable for officials to intervene now, that is enough.”
Justices then probed the extent of the rule DOJ proposed. Chief Justice Roberts asked whether threats to property damage would allow law enforcement to enter a home. DOJ counsel said the question went beyond the issue of the government’s interest in protecting human life at issue in the case.
FEDagent will update readers on the Supreme Court’s decision when it issues later this year. Read the full transcript of the oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom.
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.