The Supreme Court ruled against police in an unjustified search for the RI man’s house

Washington DC — Edward Caniglia and his wife fought a nasty battle on August 20, 2015. That’s why his wife decided to spend the night at the hotel.

When Caniglia didn’t answer the phone the next day, his wife, Kim, called police in Cranston, Rhode Island, worried he might commit suicide. He recovered the unloaded gun during their discussion the day before and said, “Why would you shoot me and take me out of my misery?”

Edward Caniglia responds to the Supreme Court's decision.

Edward Caniglia responds to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Police officers asked Caniglia and sent him to Kent Hospital for evaluation. Caniglia said he agreed only after police assured him that he would not have a gun. Nevertheless, the officer confiscated his two guns and ammunition. Caniglia was released from the hospital on the same day.

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s Rhode Island affiliate, Caniglia sued police after refusing to return the gun without court order. The gun was returned three and a half months after he filed a proceeding.

“I immediately felt it was a false charge …. if they could do this with these guns, when they could rob my car because I ran a stop sign Can you do it? It was arbitrary, “said Caniglia, 70. ..

On Monday, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Cranston had infringed the Fourth Amendment of Caniglia by entering his house, seizing a gun, and being taken to a hospital without a warrant.

“I feel great. I was right,” said Caniglia.

“None of this was anti-police, but it was their reaction that day. It was a little out of control,” Caniglia said. He says he’s not seeking damages, but only to cover his legal costs.

Thomas W. Lyons III and Rhiannon Selina Huffman represented him in the US District Court and the First US Court of Appeals. Shay Dvoretzky alleged the case in the US Supreme Court.

Edward Canigria and Lawyer Ryanon Serena & # xa0; Huffman and Thomas W. Lions III. He calls him a

Edward Caniglia and lawyers Ryanon Serena Huffman and Thomas W. Lions III. He calls him a “hero”.

“They worked very hard for me,” Caniglia said in an interview at the Lions office. “They are my heroes.”

More: Cranston police seized a man’s gun in 2015. What the US Supreme Court heard about it in 2021.

The case, which touched on the sacredness of the house, the rights of guns, and the duty of police officers to make swift decisions in a myriad of situations, snowballed and snowballed to retrieve unloaded guns. Caniglia admits that it arose from.

A police officer on the scene asked Caniglia a question. He tells them he never commits suicide and says he left to take his antihypertensive drug during the conversation. Still, the policeman took him to the hospital, where the doctor sent him home with his wife a few hours later.

“They didn’t really know why I was there,” he said of the staff. He reports that he did not talk to his wife for several weeks after the incident, but the couple remain married.

“It didn’t make sense why they came to my house and robbed me of everything,” said Caniglia, who doesn’t consider himself a gun advocate or NRA advocate.

In 2019, U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., ruled in favor of Cranston police, and when police officers sent Caniglia for evaluation, the public under the so-called community care exception. We conclude that we are fulfilling our obligation to protect. And he confiscated his gun without a warrant. The 1st US Court of Appeals upheld the decision a year later.

“Police officers may have to make decisions on the fly in dire and rapidly evolving situations. Such considerations are some of the responsibility of the police to take care of their communities. I argue convincingly in favor of giving a reasonable margin, “Senior Circuit Judge Bruce Celia wrote in the Court of Appeals.

Caniglia called for a retrial by the Supreme Court and challenged the ruling as an unconstitutional extension of the exception to caring for the community.

The· The Supreme Court heard the de facto debate In March, just thinking about when police might enter the house without a warrant.

The Supreme Court in 1973 ruled that police officers did not violate Article 4 of the Constitutional Amendment when they searched the trunk of a car without a warrant. Since then, courts across the country have been divided on whether these protections should be extended to housing, and some courts have extended the exception to local care to housing.

In a ruling written by Judge Clarence Thomas, the High Court found that the search for a house and a car were constitutionally distinguishable.

Judge Clarence Thomas wrote the decision.

Judge Clarence Thomas wrote the decision.

“At the heart of the guarantee of Article 4 of the Constitutional Amendment is the right of a person to retreat to his or her home,” free from unjustified government invasion, “the court wrote. “Awareness of the existence of” community care “tasks that assist drivers of vehicles with disabilities is not an unlimited license to perform them anywhere. “

In a ruling that agrees, Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirms that courts, police officers and police stations are “reasonable in circumstances” for improper entry in situations where a person may be at risk. I warned that I need to be careful to do so.

An incident involving an armed suicide. Elderly people who cannot attend church and cannot be contacted. And young unmanned children “in my view show the kind of unjust entry that is completely constitutional under the doctrine of emergencies,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“The important point is that, unless there are existing exceptions such as emergencies or consent, homes are entitled to better constitutional protection than cars,” Lions said. Otherwise, officers must secure a warrant.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Rhode Island member welcomed the ruling as an important victory for privacy rights.

In a statement, Rhode Island Secretary-General Stephen Brown said in a statement, “Article 4 of the Constitutional Amendment has always served as an important barrier to police invasion. The court reaffirmed this basic principle. I am very pleased with that. “

The ruling may return the case to the First US Circuit Court of Appeals and return the case to the US District Court to address issues that the Supreme Court’s opinion did not resolve.

Mark Decist, who represented Cranston, was not asked to comment on Monday. The city’s communications coordinator also didn’t call late Monday.

Rhode Island enacted the Hazard Signals Act in 2018 after Caniglia filed his proceedings. The law allows police to remove guns from people who pose a serious danger to themselves or others by court order.

This article was originally published in The Providence Journal: RI gun attack case ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Posted on