The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant for reasons of health or public safety, overruling a lower court’s decision in a unanimous 9 to 0 decision.
The case involved a Rhode Island man named Edward Caniglia whose home was entered by officers who removed his firearms. after officers entered his home and confiscated his guns.
The court ruled the action violated his constitutional rights by bringing him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation and taking away his guns without a warrant after a 2015 argument with his wife, according to a Reuters new release.
The Fourth Amendment
The decision overruled the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that “police in the Rhode Island city of Cranston did not violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.”
“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
While the case involved privacy rights and mental health issues, many privacy-focused Americans rejoiced on social media after the ruling.
Big victory today for the 2nd and 4th amendments as SCOTUS ruled 9-0 today that law enforcement can not enter our homes and unconstitutionally seize firearms without a warrant!
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) May 17, 2021
The Biden Administration Overruled Again
Despite the ruling, President Joe Biden’s administration had backed police in the case.
“A Justice Department lawyer told the justices that officers should not be required to obtain warrants in situations in which people could be seriously harmed,” according to the Reuters report.
Justice Neil Gorsuch had previously criticized the attitude that government officials could secure so-called “administrative” warrants as an alternative.
He asked, “If the government can just get an administrative warrant to come in to test for illness, to check the temperature of the house, whether it’s too hot, too cold … what’s left of the Fourth Amendment?”
Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor opposed the action, noting, “there was no immediate danger to the person threatening suicide and no immediate danger to the wife because the suicide person [sic] was removed to a hospital.”