Supreme Court rules 4th Amendment means what it says: State can't seize guns from your home w/o a warrant

 If no one has accused you of committing a crime, the 4th Amendment says the State (cops or authorities in whatever form they decide to take that day) can't enter your home without a warrant.

And being good citizens, you've always thought the Constitution was "the law of the land," eh?

But until yesterday, cops routinely entered homes without a warrant, under a judge-created theory called the “community caretaking exception," which didn't just give the State legal cover to *enter* your home, but also to seize any items it wished--so long as the acts could be rationalized as falling under "community caretaking."  (See Cady v. Dombrowski.)

It's amazing how liberal judges have managed to violate the Constitution by cunning rationalization, eh?

Well...in 2015 Edward Caniglia and his wife began arguing after Caniglia presented weapons to her and requested that she help him commit self-harm.  His wife called the cops, who arrived and arranged an ambulance to take the guy to the hospital for a psychiatric exam.  Despite the man’s objections, the cops seized the man's guns, arguing that he posed a danger to himself and the community.

The man later sued, arguing that the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.

The lower courts rejected his argument, siding with the cops.  Fortunately he had the resources to appeal, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals again sided with the cops, ruling that the warrantless seizure was allowed under that marvelously undefined, unlimited judge-created theory of "community caretaking."

Amazingly, the guy appealed THAT ruling to the Supreme Court--a highly costly step.  Even more amazingly, the SC agreed to hear the case.  Not surprisingly, the Biden regime filed an amicus brief supporting the theory that the State had the absolute right to enter without a warrant and seize anything it wanted, regardless of the 4th Amendment, as long as it could claim a "non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”  The DOJ also argued that "there may be circumstances that allow caretaking in the home absent a warrant.”

Ah, "caretaking."  Rational adults will recognize that that argument is almost infinitely elastic, but sounds totally harmless.
 
So yesterday almost everyone was stunned when the Supreme Court ruled--unanimously--that law enforcement can't legally enter homes without a warrant by invoking the “community caretaking” theory.

But lest you think the court has returned to the Fourth Amendment, Justice Alito noted that this ruling does NOT apply to "emergency scenarios"--the “exigent circumstances” exception--yet another class of scenarios under which police can entering your home without a warrant and seize whatever they like--as long as the entry and seizure are for "other non-law-enforcement purposes.”

This is of huge interest because several Dem-ruled states have passed so-called “red flag” laws, which give police the authority to enter a home and seize firearms--supposedly only with a court order--if the State claims the owner is considered "a particular risk to themselves or others."

So even though the court has yet to rule on "red flag laws," the Caniglia ruling is still good news.