Pistols and Ammunition Seized Without Warrant.

[ozarkpugs]

That's an issue you should take up with the officers who were there and their supervisor who approved the confiscation.

In that light I guess anything anyone who has made a comment on this subject should take it up with the "officers who were there and their supervisor" . My point is if the man was the problem and he was removed why did the guns need to be removed ? Unless of course the wife asked them to. If he was evaluated mentally unstable then he should not be able to keep them but other wise he should be able to keep them .


Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

[thperez1972]

In that light I guess anything anyone who has made a comment on this subject should take it up with the "officers who were there and their supervisor" . My point is if the man was the problem and he was removed why did the guns need to be removed ? Unless of course the wife asked them to. If he was evaluated mentally unstable then he should not be able to keep them but other wise he should be able to keep them .


Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

Depending on the laws of the state, the length of time the hospital could force the man to stay would vary. Some states have different rules for voluntary admission vs court ordered admission. At some point, the guy would likely be able to legally leave the hospital, even before he was "better." If he chose to and unless the wife kept the weapons on her 24/7, he would have access to the weapons. Perhaps the police felt it would be a liability for them to leave the weapons accessible to someone who was not mentally stable. But that's just a guess. I wasn't part of the decision process.

[JimmyJames]

Depending on the laws of the state, the length of time the hospital could force the man to stay would vary. Some states have different rules for voluntary admission vs court ordered admission. At some point, the guy would likely be able to legally leave the hospital, even before he was "better." If he chose to and unless the wife kept the weapons on her 24/7, he would have access to the weapons. Perhaps the police felt it would be a liability for them to leave the weapons accessible to someone who was not mentally stable. But that's just a guess. I wasn't part of the decision process.

I've read through all these posts, and I think you're all getting lost in the weeds here. Does anything being discussed here really matter? At the end of the day, rights exist and should not be violated for a reason. There is no case-by-case compromise on this, whether or not it could be argued as morally justified or intended to ensure the safety of involved parties. That William Blackstone quote comes to mind about letting 10 guilty go unpunished if it means 1 innocent goes free. Liberty even at the expense of safety and security. If some people die, so be it. A Nanny State is far more horrific.

Whether or not they lied doesn't matter. Whether or not they were well-intentioned doesn't matter. Whether or not their actions could be proven to have prevented loss of life Does Not Matter. They had no authority to do what they did, and violated Caniglia’s rights in the process. Whether or not you consider the "community caretaker" role a valid one (and it's not - the entire precedent set in US vs. Ross was based on B.S. The "practical mobility" argument requiring "immediate intrusion" had no bearing since they didn't even SEARCH the damned car until it was already impounded and thus "secure" from public access, allowing ample time for a warrant) that still provides no argument for this current case. The ruling specifically states it does not apply in the case of a person's home:

"the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Id., at 153, 45 S.Ct., at 285.

They specifically stated their ruling does not apply to a domicile both because there is no mobility argument and because a man's castle is considered to have a far higher expectation of privacy and protection under the 4th.

Bottom Line: It WAS a rights violation and LE was in the wrong.

[ozarkpugs]

I've read through all these posts, and I think you're all getting lost in the weeds here. Does anything being discussed here really matter? At the end of the day, rights exist and should not be violated for a reason. There is no case-by-case compromise on this, whether or not it could be argued as morally justified or intended to ensure the safety of involved parties. That William Blackstone quote comes to mind about letting 10 guilty go unpunished if it means 1 innocent goes free. Liberty even at the expense of safety and security. If some people die, so be it. A Nanny State is far more horrific.

Whether or not they lied doesn't matter. Whether or not they were well-intentioned doesn't matter. Whether or not their actions could be proven to have prevented loss of life Does Not Matter. They had no authority to do what they did, and violated Caniglia’s rights in the process. Whether or not you consider the "community caretaker" role a valid one (and it's not - the entire precedent set in US vs. Ross was based on B.S. The "practical mobility" argument requiring "immediate intrusion" had no bearing since they didn't even SEARCH the damned car until it was already impounded and thus "secure" from public access, allowing ample time for a warrant) that still provides no argument for this current case. The ruling specifically states it does not apply in the case of a person's home:

"the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Id., at 153, 45 S.Ct., at 285.

They specifically stated their ruling does not apply to a domicile both because there is no mobility argument and because a man's castle is considered to have a far higher expectation of privacy and protection under the 4th.

Bottom Line: It WAS a rights violation and LE was in the wrong.

Blackstone , did someone say Blackstone ? Now I'm hungry and will have to lite up the Blackstone griddle . Just kidding . I agree with you or should I say Mr. Blackstone .

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

[thperez1972]

I've read through all these posts, and I think you're all getting lost in the weeds here. Does anything being discussed here really matter? At the end of the day, rights exist and should not be violated for a reason. There is no case-by-case compromise on this, whether or not it could be argued as morally justified or intended to ensure the safety of involved parties. That William Blackstone quote comes to mind about letting 10 guilty go unpunished if it means 1 innocent goes free. Liberty even at the expense of safety and security. If some people die, so be it. A Nanny State is far more horrific.

Whether or not they lied doesn't matter. Whether or not they were well-intentioned doesn't matter. Whether or not their actions could be proven to have prevented loss of life Does Not Matter. They had no authority to do what they did, and violated Caniglia’s rights in the process. Whether or not you consider the "community caretaker" role a valid one (and it's not - the entire precedent set in US vs. Ross was based on B.S. The "practical mobility" argument requiring "immediate intrusion" had no bearing since they didn't even SEARCH the damned car until it was already impounded and thus "secure" from public access, allowing ample time for a warrant) that still provides no argument for this current case. The ruling specifically states it does not apply in the case of a person's home:

"the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.", at 153, 45 S.Ct., at 285.

They specifically stated their ruling does not apply to a domicile both because there is no mobility argument and because a man's castle is considered to have a far higher expectation of privacy and protection under the 4th.

Bottom Line: It WAS a rights violation and LE was in the wrong.

Are you aware that Article III of the constitution established a judicial branch?

[MOTOR51]

I’m not going to quote anyone specific but some of you might want to get some mental help. Some of the thought processes on here are troubling and I’m trying to chalk it up to “internet commando” syndrome but I’m beginning to wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JimmyJames]

Are you aware that Article III of the constitution established a judicial branch?

I don't follow whatever it is you're implying here, so maybe spell it out for me? What I quoted WAS from the SCOTUS ruling. My pointing out the "community caretaker" ruling was B.S. is contrary to that ruling, but nonetheless a valid point, as the entire argument was based on the car being unsecured, which it wasn't by the time it was searched at the impound yard.

[thperez1972]

I don't follow whatever it is you're implying here, so maybe spell it out for me? What I quoted WAS from the SCOTUS ruling. My pointing out the "community caretaker" ruling was B.S. is contrary to that ruling, but nonetheless a valid point, as the entire argument was based on the car being unsecured, which it wasn't by the time it was searched at the impound yard.

You're talking about the bill of rights so I assumed you might be familiar with the constitution. You said the actions of the police were a rights violation and the police were in the wrong. The judicial branch, established in Article III of the constitution, disagrees with your conclusion. So far, they have indicated the police were within their rights to do what they did. I've included a link to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's ruling.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.op...-1764P-01A.pdf

[Core]

It cant be “bashing” because its true.