Join BayouShooter For Free
Meplat

Page 1 of 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60
  1. #1
    La. CHP Instructor #409

    Premium Member

    User Info Menu

    Pistols and Ammunition Seized Without Warrant.

    The United States Supreme Court has taken on a fourth amendment case that asks whether or not police can seize guns from a home without a warrant, under a previously decided case allowing for “community caretaking“. Whether or not this new case regarding the home will meet that muster or not is yet to be seen, but it will have to face tougher scrutiny in dealing with the home, rather than to a vehicle in which the community caretaking exception dealt with. This new case, Caniglia v. Strom, involves the plaintiff Edward Caniglia, his wife Kim, and several officers of the Cranston Police Department in Rhode Island.

    SUMMARY OF CANIGLIA V. STROM
    The incident occurred in August 2015, when the Caniglia’s had a heated argument. During the argument, Edward retrieved an unloaded handgun and (presumably loaded) magazine and put them on the kitchen table and asked his wife to shoot him “and get it over with”. Ultimately, Kim returned the gun to its spot and hid the magazine, then stayed at a hotel for the night, and in the morning, called a non-emergency line to law enforcement to accompany her to the house as she was worried about what she might find, though she stated that she did not fear for her own safety.

    Edward admitted to the incident but denied any suicidal thoughts. In talking with the officers, Edward agreed to go by ambulance to a hospital for a mental evaluation and claims that the officers told him that they would not confiscate his guns if he went voluntarily. Officers deny making that promise, but Edward had made it clear he did not want his property seized. Once Edward was gone, Kim directed the officers to each of the two guns, their magazines and ammunition. The Caniglia’s claim that officers informed Kim that Edward consented to the seizure of the two guns and took them with approval from a supervisor.

    Edward was not admitted as an inpatient and made attempts to retrieve his property, but the following month enlisted the help of a lawyer. In December 2015, he was finally able to retrieve his two guns. Edward filed a lawsuit against the officers and the City of Cranston for violating his Second and Fourth Amendment rights, as well as violations against several state statutes as well.

    COMMUNITY CARETAKING, AND POLICE “REASONABLENESS”
    The City and its officers are claiming that their action of seizing Edward’s guns from his home are covered under the community caretaking exception to warrant searches, which is based on 1973 case involving removing a bloody firearm from the trunk of an impounded, but unprotected vehicle that stemmed from a drunk driving incident. Part of that case involves taking inventory of an impounded vehicle, but the broader, more subjective take away is if officers acted “reasonably”. Several sources have noted that the community caretaking claim is one of three exceptions to warrantless searches, the other two being “exigent circumstances” and “emergency aid,” neither of which apply to Caniglia’s case. Do you think community caretaking applies to Edward Caniglia’s case? Do you think the police officers acted reasonably?

  2. #2
    Don’t troll me bro!

    User Info Menu

    I don’t want to cop bash here, but I learned long ago that cops are under zero expectation to tell the truth, unless under oath. I’ve also learned that they will exploit that fact to the extreme if it suits their whims or agenda.
    I’ve also seen countless incidents, stories, videos, etc where people would have been better served by simply not involving law enforcement in their every little personal squabble.
    That being said, long ago, I decided that I will not open my door to police unless it’s clear that they have a warrant in hand. I will not call police or invite police to my home unless I am faced with a problem that I feel can or should only be handled by law enforcement and at such time, I will be fully prepared to accept the outcome and consequences of opening that door. Except where bound by law, I will not talk to police without an attorney present and unless my attorney advises me to do so. I will not willingly give up any of my constitutional or civil or God given rights at any time to any individual for any reason.

    As to the OP’s question, I believe the officers were being officers.
    Doesn’t play well with TROLLS...

  3. #3
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    @Magdump.
    Your first line -"I don’t want to cop bash here" and your last line -"I believe the officers were being officers" do not seem to correlate. Swing and a miss.
    "I have two guns, one for each of ya." - Doc Holliday

  4. #4
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Are they really allowed to lie to someone unless under oath?
    Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't.

    Tim

  5. #5
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jf837 View Post
    @Magdump.
    Your first line -"I don’t want to cop bash here" and your last line -"I believe the officers were being officers" do not seem to correlate. Swing and a miss.
    I believe his statement is factual . As matter of fact if you research it you will find that not only can they ( police and procecutor ) lie and to get a probable cause warrant there is nothing you can do about it . Yes police sign on the dotted line saying everything is true to the best of their knowledge but they are immune from lawsuit if they lie or hide evidence and you are arrested and tried because of it . Our latest SCOTUS , Barrett, believes this is an injustice and wants it reversed.

    Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    When you sign on a dotted line for a probable cause warrant than that is under oath and you are held accountable for anything that is not factual in the warrant. You should research a Brady violation. If an officer is deemed a "Brady cop" then they are never allowed to testify in court ever again. What you are referring to in reference to the immunity from lawsuits is a different animal altogether and that is referred to as qualified immunity. That just means the burden of proof is higher to successfully sue a government official because they are more susceptible to frivolous lawsuits based on the nature of their role. Two different things. Also, that is not what I was referencing in my previous post.
    "I have two guns, one for each of ya." - Doc Holliday

  7. #7
    Don’t troll me bro!

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jf837 View Post
    @Magdump.
    Your first line -"I don’t want to cop bash here" and your last line -"I believe the officers were being officers" do not seem to correlate. Swing and a miss.
    Point out one derogatory statement in my post and I’ll give you a free box of ammo your choice.
    I’ll also offer a free box of crayons if ammo is not your thing.
    Try again?
    As to my comment about the officers being officers, I’ll clarify. An officer can and will lie freely to anyone that is subject to or party to their investigation without fear of any sort of reprimand, prosecution, persecution, or any other negative outcome for himself, so much so that it is common practice in an investigation and should be expected. Officers being officers.
    An investigation can be anything from a traffic stop or knock on your door to a cop simply walking up to a person in public and posing a question.
    Last edited by Magdump; February 19th, 2021 at 10:57 AM.
    Doesn’t play well with TROLLS...

  8. #8
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jf837 View Post
    When you sign on a dotted line for a probable cause warrant than that is under oath and you are held accountable for anything that is not factual in the warrant. You should research a Brady violation. If an officer is deemed a "Brady cop" then they are never allowed to testify in court ever again. What you are referring to in reference to the immunity from lawsuits is a different animal altogether and that is referred to as qualified immunity. That just means the burden of proof is higher to successfully sue a government official because they are more susceptible to frivolous lawsuits based on the nature of their role. Two different things. Also, that is not what I was referencing in my previous post.
    If a cop lies on the dotted line he knows he will probably not be held accountable . The Brady law will get you a retrial if you can provide evidence the police or prosecutor hid evidence of guilt or lied to facilitate arrest and prosection but at your expence . You end up bankrupt and they say it was a mistake and not intentional and skate . I know all of this for a fact because my we are personally going through it right now . We have video evidence the " presumed victim " told the police " my dad did not do anything but mom said I had to say he did so he would be arrested " . It took thousands of dollars to get that video turned over . The cop said I believe he just said that because he was afraid to tell the truth and that made it ok . The prosecutor said they had temporarily lost the police interview tape and just found it. That was a accepted excuse . There needs to be a open channel to sue the ones who cause you to be wrongfully prosecuted instead of the ones who do it to you deciding if they "intentionally " did you an injustice . Four years later the child still maintains his mom told him to lie . Charges dropped and refiled to get rid of judge that demanded tapes be found then dropped again day before depositions wit case worker and cop and just mom's statement of what the victim supposedly told her the given to a grand jury and another arrest . All because she got caught having an affair with a cop and didn't want to loose in a child custody battle . You can say there are steps you can take all day long but that doesn't work In the real world . You will be out hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyers and bondsmen and all they have to do is say it was all a mistake .

    Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Don’t troll me bro!

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by machinedrummer View Post
    Are they really allowed to lie to someone unless under oath?
    It’s well documented that a cop can lie til he’s blue in the face during an ‘investigation’ and it will be accepted as part of his/her investigation as much as any other tactic of questioning.
    Also, I’d like to add that I’m talking about lying to a civilian that is part of an investigation as applied to the story in the OP. If someone takes my remark completely out of context, people should take it up with that someone.
    Last edited by Magdump; February 19th, 2021 at 10:45 AM.
    Doesn’t play well with TROLLS...

  10. #10
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Magdump View Post
    Point out one derogatory statement in my post and I’ll give you a free box of ammo your choice.
    Try again?
    How about my first quote, in which you made a blanket statement of "officers being officers" as a reference that the officers acted outside of the law. I agree with you that people shouldn't involve police in little family squabbles. However, given the apparent circumstances involved in this case, the police did not just happen upon that residence in order to steal someone's firearms. They were called their by the wife, who also is a resident of the home and advised that the husband had made a suicidal statement. In normal circumstances, officers, along with medical personnel, must take this type of statement serious, lest they get sue if they do nothing and have someone follow through with the alleged claim. I wasn't there (nor were you) so it is hard for either of us to say whether the officers or the alleged suicidal man who went to the hospital for a mental evaluation lied. I am not casting any judgement in any regard, I just think your first statement and the rest of your post correlated with one another.

    9mm... PM me for the address Jk, I have plenty. Don't get so butthurt. It's just the internet.
    "I have two guns, one for each of ya." - Doc Holliday

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •