swat team door entry raid confiscation
(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Hannah Cox

In a case argued before the US Supreme Court last week, the Biden Administration, along with attorneys general from nine states, submitted arguments asking the justices to uphold warrantless home entry and gun confiscation by police.

The case stems from a domestic dispute between an elderly married couple, Edward and Kim Caniglia. After an intense argument between the two that led to Edward dramatically telling his wife to shoot him with one of his handguns, Kim left the home to spend the night in a hotel. The next day she was unable to reach her husband and became concerned.

She reached out to police for a wellness check and an escort back to the home. But upon their arrival, police manipulated Edward into a psychiatric evaluation even though officers admitted in their incident report that he “seemed normal” and “was calm for the most part.”

The police officers then lied to Mrs. Caniglia and told her Mr. Caniglia agreed to confiscation of his weapons. Even though Edwards was promptly released from the hospital, he was only able to regain his property after filing a civil rights lawsuit.

Police in the case relied upon a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment called “community caretaking.” This exception is a half-century old Supreme Court-created doctrine designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety. Essentially it was meant to give law enforcement a legal way to remove cars from the side of the interstate or clear wrecks.

While the First Circuit US Court of Appeals acknowledged the doctrine’s reach outside the context of motor vehicles is “ill-defined,” it upheld the arguments in this case and allowed the exception to extend to private homes. In its finding the Court states that this exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action.”

But attorneys for Caniglia argue that extending the community caretaking exception to private homes would be an assault on the Fourth Amendment and would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.

An amicus brief filed by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union agreed with the attorneys and pointed to jurisdictions that have extended such provisions leading to warrantless invasions of homes for things like loud music or leaky pipes.

One does not need to have a long memory to understand exactly how such permissions could go awry. For anyone who has paid attention to the news cycle over the past year, it is jarring to see a Democratic administration argue for warrantless home entry and gun seizures merely one year after Breonna Taylor’s death.

Taylor was killed in her home by police after a no-knock entry (tied to a falsified warrant) led to cops spraying her apartment (and surrounding ones) with bullets. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by criminals during the middle of the night, fired in defense and was originally charged in the case (all charges were later dropped and he is suing the department).

The case created a national firestorm that elevated conversations around Second Amendment rights and self-defense, no-knock warrants, Fourth Amendment protections, and the need for policing reform and accountability. If such atrocities occurred under our current laws, it is pretty scary to imagine what law enforcement might get away with should the Biden administration get its way in this case.

Such arguments before the Supreme Court show that for many “progressives” their admirable instinct to restrict police power quickly goes out the window when they see an opportunity to chip away at gun rights.

Joe Biden Kamala Harris
(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

This is severely misguided. A cursory overlook of the justice system’s operations reveals that the expansion of police powers almost always impacts marginalized communities more harshly— communities the Democrats claim to stand for.

In a 2016 speech on the senate floor, Senator Tim Scott (R, SC) spoke about his own experience with racial bias in policing as a black man in this country. “In the course of one year, I’ve been stopped seven times by law enforcement,” Scott said. “Not four, not five, not six, but seven times in one year as an elected official.”

There is no reason to think that an extension of the community care exception would not have the same effect on communities of color.

To cite just one study out of hundreds, the US Sentencing Commission found that when it comes to federal gun crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to get longer sentences for similar crimes, and more likely to get sentencing enhancements. If the Supreme Court upholds the administration’s argument, it is not difficult to predict which communities will be impacted the most by this new expansion.

Progressives are not the only ones experiencing a disconnect in principles at the moment either. Many Republicans were surprised in recent months to see police departments readily enforce unconstitutional lockdowns—carting business owners off to jail and fining law-abiding people who simply wanted to go to work.

Likely, the majority on the right will be aghast at the arguments presented in this case and their clear violation of both our Second and Fourth Amendment rights. But it should not escape them who is arguing for these violations, nor who would ultimately enforce them.

In another amicus brief filed by the public interest litigation giant, the Institute for Justice, attorneys argued “The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization. A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

The Breonna Taylor case should have been a turning point in our nation’s history and spurred legislation that would strengthen and uphold our essential individual rights and restrict police power. Many hoped it would be the final straw that brought an end to egregious practices like no-knock warrants. Instead, despite much public outcry and demand, we continue to see politicians on both sides of the aisle push for increased police power and an erosion of our right to be secure in our homes and our property.

Former Congressman Justin Amash (L-MI) said protection from warrantless searches is central to the Bill of Rights.

“The warrant requirement isn’t optional; it’s at the heart of the Fourth Amendment,” Amash told FEE. “Treating the Fourth Amendment as though it flatly permits searches and seizures that seem ‘reasonable’ in the eyes of government officials, regardless of whether a warrant has been obtained, drains it of its purpose: protecting the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property.”

Make no mistake, this is among the most appalling attacks on our fundamental rights and way of life currently occurring. It is an attack on property rights, on our right to self-defense, and on our right to privacy, and if it is allowed there will be gross violations of individuals as a repercussion.

It is vitally important to remember that police brutality is a direct consequence of a government that has grown too big and powerful. The more power we give to the government and its agents, the more prone it is to abuse. It’s time we address the root cause of the problem and put the government back in its place.


Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer, commentator, and activist. She’s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner.


This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Huh, I was promised that the Biden administration would be so amazing for guns. Who was it again who kept making that claim?

    • I don’t know. I never heard that.
      Instead, I heard (from Biden himself) that Beto “Hell Yes, We’re Going to Take Your AR-15’s” O’Rourke would become his go-to man on guns.
      I watched video of Biden saying no one needed more than six rounds.
      “Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun,” his campaign says. “That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.” Biden does not understand that there are also federal laws against killing anyone, including children, as well as laws in every state. And that doesn’t even consider that hunting children, no matter what weapon is used (including rocks), is illegal.
      No, Biden has never been considered “amazing for guns.”

      • True, one does not need more than 3 rounds in a duck gun or 30 rounds in an AR-15 to hunt deer, But, our Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment because the deer or ducks were coming. What they foresaw coming….is here….sitting in the Command Post……destroying America.

  2. If you are driving stupid or doing something stupid with a firearm you are inviting the police into your life and that is on your end.
    Just because you own firearms that pasty mouth busy body democRat Party Jim Crow Gun Control zealots have a problem with is not a reason for anyone to threaten using the police to storm your home to confiscate firearms. That’s the problem here. And it’s based on an old despicable tactic used by the Jim Crow Gun Control military wing of the democRat Party better known as the KKK. Actually Gun Control is a democRat Party Family Tradition that democRats just cannot let go of.
    We all know what happened to the Gun Confiscating KKK and The Gun Confiscating Nazi SS. They got a spanking…Big Time.

    • These are the same type of people who think “shall not be infringed” means “the government will tell you what you’re allowed to have.” It’s just how they operate.

    • These are the same people who think the government should not have any restrictions imposed by morals, ethics, or law. They think the lack of restrictions gives the government more flexibility to achieve results.

      It is a lot easier to build a canal if you don’t want to hire workers and provide proper tools if can round up a group of people, transport them to the site, and get them to work under threat of slow death by starvation or summary executions.

      This is how the USSR and PRC became great nations and according to Democrats are examples to emulate.

    • They are saying that SCOTUS authorized moving junkers from the side of the Interstate 50 years ago means that they can just ignore the 4th Amendment forever? I have a problem with the ORIGINAL ruling, which should have only existed on a temporary emergency basis to allow the time for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to alter the clear meaning of the 4th Amendment, or revert to the Constitution as written. Why in hell would an invention by the Court overrule an actual Amendment of any stripe, let alone one of the Bill of Rights? Whose idea was that, and where is the authority within the Constitution?

    • They rely on the “community caretaking” exception, failing to note that it was premised on what amounted to exigent circumstances with respect to vehicle whose occupants had been removed/arrested. Can’t leave a car on the side of a road because it could be a hazard to traffic, so you have the right to tow it to an impound lot. When it gets there, well you have to search the car so that you can establish that you didn’t steal anything while it was in government custody. And if it just so happened that contraband was found, oh well, there is no violation of the 4th because the search was not for the purpose of discovering contraband….
      Of course, none of that rational applies to the instant case. There was no reason to take property from a private residence for “caretaking,” as the officers knew that the man would not be held, nor did they detain him for the purpose of a psych eval (for which they had no probable cause). Nor did they seize the property at the time they took him to the hospital, they came back after dropping him off and then lied to the wife to get her consent to a search for a firearm they knew was there but had no lawful reason to seize. Te took it because they could, and they hate civilians having guns.

      I do not think this case will go well for the government. The police were clearly overreaching, and their actions cannot b e justified under any theory.

      • . Te took it because they could, and they hate civilians having guns: WELL, you have remember this happened right in the HEART of Trump country in Cranston, Rhode Island… This WHOLE thing is his fault… Just like how he shrewdly manipulated the ATF into banning bump stocks and then “foolishly” appointed Pro 2A Judges and Justices to District and Appellate Courts and three SCOTUS Justices without a thought that there might be a court action to overturn BATFEs ruling… OOOOPPPPPPs.

  3. “The police officers then lied to Mrs. Caniglia and told her Mr. Caniglia agreed to confiscation of his weapons.”

    I have an idea Leftist scum and Conservatives can get behind –

    How about making it illegal for a cop to knowingly lie to someone they are investigating?

    • The worst kind of Government over reach is police over reach. Remember that the next time you might want to cheer the police after a police shooting.

    • How about not getting into a heated argument with your old lady and calling the po-leece?!? THAT insanity ended long ago for me…

      • She did not call them until the next day, when she could not reach him, and was afraid he may have done, might do something to harm himself.

  4. The case is one thing but the background to it is something else. Both the husband and his wife trusted the police. That was a huge mistake. The police lied to his wife, manipulated him (that’s the right word for what they did) into being detained for a psych eval despite showing no outward evidence of mental disturbance, illegally confiscated his property, etc., etc. And now our own government is telling us that kind of behavior was OK?

  5. I watched this abortion and the Caniglia Attorney was not the most convincing OR knowledgeable individual I have ever heard presenting an argument, but most of the questions asked by the Justices seemed favorable (including Sotomayor) to the Caniglias argument…

    • Chris, are you so simple that you can’t consult a calendar to determine the true facts in the matter?

      This case has been pursued for the last four years by Donald Trump‘s DOJ, the Democrats had nothing to do with it.

      Man, you guys fall for anything.

      • No 49r, you are the one manipulated and have fallen for the lies of the left spewed daily and freely by their projectile, the leftist media liars.

        • No 49r, you are the one manipulated

          I guess he missed the part where the ORIGINAL ruling was made in District Court by an Obama appointee OR the fact that the three judge panel from the 5th Circuit included an Obama appointee AND Justice Souter (a “Conservative?” justice that nearly ALWAYS sided with the Liberals at SCOTUS)… Or that the BIDEN DOJ and 9 “LIBERAL” Attorneys General petitioned SCOTUS to uphold the lower court… Funny it was all available in the article he used to copy/paste his half assed attack on Trump… Will he respond? Nahhhh…

      • Miner, you must have missed the part where the Biden administration’s attorneys are arguing in favor of the abusive, unconstitutional police action.

        From the Forbes article linked above:
        But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued 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.”

        • Can you not read a calendar?

          ‘Biden attorneys’ have only been a thing for the last month.

          Trump attorneys have been pursuing this case for four years.

          It is clearly a Trump/Republican priority to pursue this case.

        • Ingrid, I can understand your confusion, the right-wing biased MSM is misleading you with their statement:

          “But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration”

          The amicus brief was filed by Morgan Ratner, a Trump appointed assistant to the solicitor General, who has been at the department of justice since April 2017.

          How ironic, it is one of trump’s deep state appointees that is taking your 2nd & 4th amendment rights.

          Did you even read the appeal this article is discussing, or are you getting all your info from the Forbes article?

        • 1st of all an “Assistant” to the Solicitor General of the United States is not “appointed” they are “career” employees who answer to the CURRENT Solicitor General (in this case President “Creepy” Uncle Joe named Elizabeth Prelogar, to serve as acting solicitor general, in an acknowledgment that the office charged with representing the government before the Supreme Court will face an enormous workload REVERSING Trump administration legal positions…) The Amicus brief was prepared by the Beijing Biden DOJ and supported by 9 Liberal Attorneys General… It was MORGAN L. RATNERs job to argue her CURRENT employers position not that of ANY previous administration..

        • Who in the HELL ever argued that the Bill of Rights was ever intended to be the least little bit “reasonable”? The whole idea was CONCRETE rules to keep government power in check. ABSOLUTELY, permanently, unreasonably and unquestionably in check. Necessary only because the Founders could imagine that the Constitution itself might someday be construed to be subject to “reasonable” alteration without the consent of the governed.

        • And you’re purposefully missing my point, Miner, which is that the Biden administration is pursuing the case RIGHT NOW.

          They don’t have to keep defending this crap just because an attorney in Trump’s administration filed an amicus brief. They’ve made a big show of dismantling everything of Trump’s that they could possibly get their hands on — but not this.

          They could withdraw, but they didn’t. They’re arguing for it *right now,* which means they own it now.

  6. Another big problem with this is people will not contact the police for any reason for fear they will have their homes searched.

    I have to admit, this one scares me more than any proposed “gun control” being pushed by JoHo or even “red flag” laws. ANYTHING could be twisted into a reason to violate your property.

        • It’s been done. Now you can call BLM or the Fascists of antifa. I expect you’ll receive superior service from them.

        • I expect you’ll receive superior service from them.

          If that was for ME you need to have that “comprehension” issue looked at, I was correcting the previous post from don’t trust the police TO don’t trust “anyone” NOT replace the police WITH anyone else… I don’t trust anyone I don’t know, and I sure as fuck won’t be calling Black Liberal Murderers or Always Needing To Implement Further Agitation… I am self reliant and take of my own… If YOU trust the police? Good luck with that..

        • Maddmax, it did not read like that. Just sayin’. Quotes around “police” and “anyone” would have fixed it.

        • Quotes around “police” and “anyone” would have fixed it.

          WOW, “MY” bad… I shall strive for perfection from this day forth so as to NOT be misunderstood by “ANYONE”… Hope “YOU” will do the same…

    • This literally is the gun control they want. If this kind of thing is allowed to stand, you’d better believe they’ll systematically abuse it on the “reasonable” presumption that simply owning weapons makes you a danger to the community.

  7. I wonder what kind of sh1tstorm this would create in the media if Trump entertained this exact idea.

    This is a blatant violation of the 4A and every sane individual knows it.

    • “I wonder what kind of sh1tstorm this would create in the media if Trump entertained this exact idea.“


      That is exactly what he and his Department of Justice did for the past four years.

      Are you so oblivious to reality that you do not comprehend that this case has been prosecuted for the last four years by trumps very own DOJ?

      • Prove your point with documentation and articles. I watch and monitor the political scene daily. You are either a liar, 49er, or you have fallen for the lies of the leftist socialist media and the most favored fascist left in Washington.

        • Are you daft?

          Donald Trump has been in charge of the department of justice, since January 2017.

          This case has been pursued by trumps department of justice since that day, over four years ago.

          It is as simple as that.

          Do you not understand the department of justice under Donald Trump has been prosecuting this case through the federal courts since that time?

          Donald Trump and his Department of Justice have had four years to drop this case, yet they pursued it with vigor continuously through the District Court, and the appeals court.

          Biden has only been in office two months, he had nothing to do with this for the past four years.

          You people really have lost touch with reality, it’s very sad.

      • IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO PURSUED IT IN THE PAST, IT MATTERS WHO IS PURSUING IT NOW. This case is an affront to liberty, and even the liberal justices recognize it for what it is and the ramifications it would have. Why hasn’t the Biden administration dropped its amicus position?

  8. Hey now. Don’t lose sight of the real progress here. When they come to kick in your front door the point “man” will be a pregnant xe/xhe. Humanity is winning and hate is losing.

  9. it’s ok when they do it.
    i think they’ll be very careful where they apply this and only violate the rights of those that deserve it.

  10. This is simply going to get folks killed………. but that’s aways been the plan, stand on the bodies of the dead and demand more power.

  11. “it is jarring to see a Democratic administration argue for warrantless home entry and gun seizures”

    You people are shameless liars, and the depths of your duplicity know no bounds.

    Even the most basic examination of the facts in the matter show that this case has been prosecuted for the last four years by the Trump department of justice.

    Joe Biden’s attorney general was just confirmed last week, and Trump prevented his transition team from having any impact on the DOJ policies of the Trump administration.

    Donald Trump owns this, just as he owns the bump stock ban.

    “U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in 2019 ruled that the officers were acting in keeping with their duty to protect the public when they sent Caniglia to get evaluated and seized his guns without a warrant. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision a year later.”

    Y’all wish we all had forgotten when Donald Trump said “maybe we should just take the guns fast and worry about the courts later”

    • The bump stock issue never would have made it to Trump in the first place if not for the NRA. That doesnt absolve him of any responsibility. I blame the NRA for that craziness.

    • If Trump owns this, why is Biden’s DOJ arguing in favor of it now? Shouldn’t the Democrats, who are champions of the little people, be protecting an American citizen against such an egregious abuse of policing power?

  12. No president is a king.

    But the bigger problems we have is NOT with our president or his number 2. Biden will go away. Just as Trump is no longer in command. The house and senate combined with state and local leaders must be willing to comply as well. State governors can do just as much if not more harm.

    • It has nothing to do with a President, but rather everything to do with laws passed under that President. Yes, Presidents are gone after a while, but their tracks remain for years, and sometimes decades, maybe even forever. Votes matter. Can’t blame me, I Voted for Trump!!

  13. Let’s just take a look at the appeal to the SCOTUS that we’re discussing, particularly the appearances section:

    “MORGAN L. RATNER, Assistant to the Solicitor General,
    8 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;
    9 for the United States, as amicus curiae,
    10 supporting the Respondents.”

    Well now, is she one of those so-called “Biden attorneys”?

    “Morgan L. Rather
    Assistant to the Solicitor General
    Office of the Solicitor General of the United StatesHarvard Law School
    Washington, District Of Columbia
    Assistant to the Solicitor General
    Office of the Solicitor General of the United States
    Apr 2017 – Present 4 years”

    Oh look, she’s been there 4 years, appointed by Donald Trump in April 2017.

    Do any of you understand what the phrase “supporting the Respondents” means?

    So this matter is not being pursued by the Biden administration, but rather a holdover from the Donald Trump administration, specifically by a trump appointee.

    “Biden attorneys”. Hilarious!

    I’m just wondering, which of you knows the facts and is lying and which of you is just clueless about legal matters.


    • You need a lesson in reading comprehension. Do you know what “amicus curiae” means? It means “friend of the court. THE DOJ WAS NOT PURSUING THIS CASE AT ALL. IT WAS NEVER A PARTY, BUT APPEARED ONLY AS AMICUS ON BEHALF OF THE ACTUAL DEFENDANTS, THE CITY AND ITS POLICE OFFICERS who had been sued for civil rights violations by Mr. Caniglia. I guess we now know who is clueless about legal matters.

      • Ok you are right.

        I’m a lying deceiving moron that will say ANYTHING to pretend I’m smart.


  14. Don’t you people get the reality of the situation, this has been Donald Trump’s and the right wing billionaires plan from day one.

    Here’s what Trump said about this sort of situation over three years ago:

    “We’re going to take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times by the time you go to court … it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida; he had a lot of fires [and] they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.“

    Donald Trump did not even think that people like Cagniglia should have redress to the judicial system, he hates the constitution and the protections afforded to ordinary citizens within that sacred document.

    It is so sad to see so many on this list who are clueless dupes of the conspiracy…

    • It’s reality “sad” people, and as a real boy that really knows that reality is real, I’m just keeping it real.

      So as someone who is so totally not duped or a dupe, I just want to say I’m not a dope.

      Got that? I’m real, not a dupe, really not duped, and not on dope.

      Deep thoughts of Miner49er

  15. Looks like the solution may have to be repassing the 4th Amendment. Don’t need to change anything, just go vote on it again, which would remove all “interpretations” since, start over.

  16. I am a retired L.E. Officer. If contacted by the police, There are a few terms you should remember. You should not discuss anything, You should ask, “Am I under arrest?”, If the police say yes, you ask for an attorney and Shut up, If the answer is no, You ask, “Am I free to go”? If yes, get up and leave. If answer is no, ASK “Why am i being detained?” And then Shut up. Did I mention to “Shut up”. Don’t be disrepectful, but shut the hell up. Do not get into a arguement or be an asshole. Your “Social Justice” dumbshit attitude will not look good later. Now is not the time to state your case. Did I mention “Shut up” . If you know your rights, you have a right to remain silent. That means not to say anything, please envoke that right and “Shut up”. So that being said, some people just cannot control their vocal cords and Shut up. We refer to these people as “Stupid”.

  17. Trump FBI and state/local LEO collaborating with violent right-wing extremists:

    “FBI agents recruited a Proud Boys leader to provide them with information about antifa networks months before he was charged with storming the U.S. Capitol with other members of the far-right extremist group, a defense attorney says.

    Proud Boys “thought leader” and organizer Joseph Biggs agreed to provide the FBI with information about anti-fascist activists in Florida and elsewhere after an agent contacted him in late July 2020 and arranged to meet at a restaurant, Biggs’ lawyer, J. Daniel Hull, wrote Monday in a court filing.

    The two agents who met with Biggs wanted to know what he was “seeing on the ground,” Hull said. Over the next few weeks, Biggs answered an agent’s follow-up questions in a series of phone calls.

    “They spoke often,” added Hull, who is petitioning a judge to keep Biggs out of jail pending trial.

    The defense lawyer’s claims buttress a widely held view among left-leaning ideological opponents of the Proud Boys that law enforcement has coddled them, condoned their violence and even protected them during their frequent street brawls with anti-fascists. The Proud Boys even have counted some law enforcement officers among their ranks, including a Connecticut police officer and a Louisiana sheriff’s deputy.

    Biggs also received “cautionary” phone calls from FBI agents and routinely spoke with local and federal law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, about rallies he was planning there in 2019 and 2020, according to Hull.“

      • THIS is the way of the “(self) Anointed One”.. When all else fails switch tracks, obfuscate (attempt), chop/paste and ultimately try to guide the subject matter away from the losing argument it desperately wants to cling to, but realizes, once again, that enough people are willing to call BS on its line of crap AND provide relevant material to shine a light on the shady, selectively edited garbage that it is trying to pass off as the facts, the WHOLE facts and nothing but the facts instead of “the truth according to Miner”… The sad part is that it believes this is the first time this has ever happened… and never happened with a left wing group.

    • Corrupt law-enforcement, conspiring with violent right wing extremists, giving their activities cover by unlawful advance warning.

      “Biggs also received “cautionary” phone calls from FBI agents and routinely spoke with local and federal law enforcement officials“


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here