Connect with us

Nation

Biden admin calls on SCOTUS to let police enter homes, confiscate guns without a warrant

Published

on

Supreme Court

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case about whether law enforcement officers can enter people’s home and confiscate guns without a warrant, Forbes reported.

This comes in the wake of two mass shootings in the past eight days that have renewed the gun control debate, which has been relatively dormant throughout the coronavirus pandemic.

RELATED: Report: Boulder shooter was ‘previously known’ to the FBI

Caniglia v. Strom, Forbes senior contributor Nick Sibilla wrote, is a case that could have wide-ranging consequences for policing, due process, mental health, as well as the Fourth Amendment. Notably, as part of the case, the Biden administration and attorneys general from nine states are calling on the court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation.

The case all started with an elderly couple’s dispute over a coffee mug in August 2015.

To summarize the story, an argument led to the husband—Edward Caniglia—grabbing a handgun, putting it on the kitchen table, and telling his wife Kim: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” This led to more arguing and eventually to Mrs. Caniglia spending the night in a motel. She phoned her home the next day but got no answer, which prompted her to call the police in Cranston, Rhode Island and ask them to conduct a “well check” on her husband and to escort her home.

The police, however, did not conduct the check according to the books. They then insisted that Mr. Caniglia go to the hospital for an evaluation, though Mr. Caniglia refused, emphasizing that his mental health wasn’t their business. Mr. Caniglia agreed only after police promised—albeit falsely—they would not confiscate his guns while he was away.

Furthermore, officers then told Mrs. Caniglia that her husband had consented to the seizure, and she led them to the two handguns they owned, which were then seized. Despite Mr. Caniglia being immediately discharged from the hospital, police only gave back the firearms after he filed a civil rights case against them.

Significantly, when police confiscated the handguns, they did not allege it was to prevent imminent danger. Rather, they argued their actions were a manner of “community caretaking,” a slim exception to the warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

As Sibilla explained, the community caretaking exception was initially created by the Supreme Court about half a century ago and was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, because police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads.

Both a district and appellate court upheld the confiscations as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception. The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that “the doctrine’s reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined.” Regardless, the court moved to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.”

Moreover, the court mentioned that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to…provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By allowing law enforcement to act without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added.

Attorneys for Caniglia in their opening brief for the Supreme Court argued that “extending the community caretaking exception to homes would be anathema to the Fourth Amendment” because it “would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.”

On the other hand, the Biden administration in its first amicus brief for the Supreme Court disregarded these worries and urged the court to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Saying “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Department of Justice (DOJ) contended that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

“The ultimate question in this case,” its brief stated, “is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception […] but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” actions the DOJ felt were “justified” in Caniglia’s case.

Want to learn more about this story? Then read the full original Forbes story here.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.

Continue Reading

Featured

EXCLUSIVE: Former Trump appointee explains an ‘America First Strategy’ in the ME

Published

on

Screen Shot 2024 03 13 at 9.50.09 AM
Photo: Israeli Government

The author interviewed Ellie Cohanim, one of the authors of the new book: “An America First Approach to US National Security.” Ellie is the former U.S. Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism under the Trump administration. She is currently a Senior Fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum focusing on Iran, Israel, and global antisemitism, and is a national security contributor for the Christian Broadcasting Network. In 2021, Ellie launched and hosted for Jewish News Syndicate 30 plus episodes of the show “Global Perspectives with Ellie Cohanim.” Ellie spent 15 years in media and NGO management before serving in the public sector. How would you define an “America First” strategy in the Middle East?

Cohanim: An America First strategy in the Middle East would seek to advance American national security interests in that region, while maintaining our status as THE global superpower. To do that, the US would ensure that our principal allies in the region, countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, are economically and militarily strong, and that our adversaries in the region are deterred.

Postal: How has the United States’ standing in the Middle East differed between the Trump and Biden administrations?

Cohanim: Under President Trump, for four years we had peace, stability and prosperity in the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Under President Biden, in just three tumultuous years there has been war in the region, which holds the potential for becoming a regional conflict and even a nuclear confrontation. Meanwhile, the US’ status in the region and the world has diminished due to Biden’s disastrous mishandling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, his emboldening of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and his weak response to Iranian attacks on our personnel and assets in the region. 

 

Postal: Do you think the United States and Israel are/were in a stronger position to deter Iran’s nuclear and territorial ambitions in Biden or Trump’s administration?

Cohanim: America’s position of strength has not changed under either administration vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic of Iran. What has changed is our Iran policy. Under President Trump’s administration, the US contained and constrained Tehran. Trump applied a “Maximum Pressure” sanctions campaign which left the Iranian Regime with only $4 billion in accessible foreign currency reserves by the end of his term, giving the Iranians less cash and less ability to fund their terror proxies and their nuclear program, and Trump eliminated Qassem Soleimani. While all President Biden needed to do was to continue implementing such successful policies, his administration instead did the exact opposite.  Under the Biden administration, Israel, our leading ally in the region, was attacked for the first time directly from Iranian soil. This was an unprecedented escalatory attack by the Iranian regime, and could only happen under the Biden administration.

Postal: In your chapter of the book, you discuss the weakening of US relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia under the Biden administration. How has the Biden administration affected the likelihood of future normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and deals between Israel and other Muslim countries (i.e., new Abraham Accords)?

Cohanim: The good news is that the Abraham Accords have withstood the test of multiple Hamas provocations against Israel, and now the current war. Despite numerous claims from the Biden administration regarding “successful” efforts to normalize ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, I do not think that the Biden administration will be able to clinch such a deal. In the Middle East, people have a long memory. Saudi Arabia’s de-facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has not forgotten President Biden’s snub when he first came into office, and Biden’s incredibly poorly advised behavior towards the Crown Prince when he made his first visit to the Kingdom as president. The last thing the Crown Prince wants is to hand Biden his first foreign policy success with a Rose Garden peace deal ceremony. So, I do not believe President Biden can broker Saudi/Israeli normalization.

However, I am also convinced that it is a matter of “when” and not “if” such a peace deal will happen between those two countries, as it serves both of their interests to make such a deal. The Saudis understand better than anyone that it is the Islamic Republic of Iran that threatens the Kingdom’s security and stability, not Israel.

Postal: What do you think of the Biden administration’s latest statements withholding arms to Israel?

Cohanim: President Biden will go down in history for his abject moral failure in not standing by Israel while she fights a five-front war. Biden has shown his despicable personality for trying to keep his anti-Israel arms embargo concealed until he could first deliver a speech on the Holocaust. Biden’s behavior is despicable on so many levels.

Ultimately, Biden is betraying the American people. He came into office presenting himself as a “centrist Democrat,” but has proven repeatedly to be beholden to the radical, extremist, pro-Hamas wing of his party.

Postal: How does the Biden administration’s support of a Palestinian state differ from the Trump administration’s support of a Palestinian state under its Peace to Prosperity framework?

Cohanim: The Biden administration stated that they will “unilaterally recognize” a Palestinian state. What the borders of that state are and who would lead it, nobody knows. 

The Trump administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” was a detailed plan that was premised on the realities on the ground in Israel. The plan required that the Palestinians reach benchmarks proving a real desire to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors. It included over $50 billion in investment in the region, which would have been a road to prosperity for all. Perhaps most significantly, the Palestinian state envisioned under the Trump plan would have been demilitarized, the wisdom of which could not be more clear following the October 7 massacre and attack.

The author would like to thank Ellie Cohanim for participating in this interview.

 

Continue Reading

Trending