Jump to content
Shepherd9

SCOTUS to hear search and seizure case

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Under those circumstances, I feel that the "community caretaking" standard was reasonable.  If the wife wanted to get a restraining order, leave the house or something along those lines, then the police could return said firearms accordingly.

Perhaps, but I would think overall we are too easily accepting broader circumstances to fall under "community care taking" and cases like these could set precedents allowing for more abuse of such searches.  

We already have Rubio calling for restricting 2A rights for anyone investigated for "domestic terrorism", not even convicted, just investigated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shepherd9 said:

Perhaps, but I would think overall we are too easily accepting broader circumstances to fall under "community care taking" and cases like these could set precedents allowing for more abuse of such searches.  

We already have Rubio calling for restricting 2A rights for anyone investigated for "domestic terrorism", not even convicted, just investigated.  

Specifically in this case, because he pulled the firearm and told her to use it on him, I say use caution.  There are other scenarios that wouldn't warrant the confiscation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a good example to be headed to SCOTUS. 

 

The individual openly showed a lack in judgement for his own life, and literally asked his wife to shoot him with his own pistol. 

Will be interesting to see what they decide, i see this going either way. Dumbasses should have found a better example of a redflag law that showed a clear violation.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

This is not a good example to be headed to SCOTUS. 

 

The individual openly showed a lack in judgement for his own life, and literally asked his wife to shoot him with his own pistol. 

Will be interesting to see what they decide, i see this going either way. Dumbasses should have found a better example of a redflag law that showed a clear violation.

Agreed.  Too bad they took this and not a case that interferes with carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Dumbasses should have found a better example of a redflag law that showed a clear violation.

This has NOTHING to do with red flag laws.  If the wife had properly allowed the search or retrieved the guns and turned them over, there wouldn't be a question.  But, the search and the seizure were sullied by the police lying to her and saying that her husband had given permission.  This, she believed, prevented her from stopping them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EdF said:

This has NOTHING to do with red flag laws.  If the wife had properly allowed the search or retrieved the guns and turned them over, there wouldn't be a question.  But, the search and the seizure were sullied by the police lying to her and saying that her husband had given permission.  This, she believed, prevented her from stopping them.  

That's not what the police are using as an excuse to search the house. They are not claiming consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EdF said:

No . . . That is not correct.

How so?

The complaint refers directly to the community caretaking exception being used by Law Enforcement as a reason for the search, and that they claim neither the wife nor the husband consented to the search. The entire SOTUS decisions will handle on that. No some lie they told the wife. 

 

"And in this venue, the defendants press no argument that they secured valid consent from the plaintiff's wife to seize the firearms."

In short, the cops may have lied to the woman to gain entry, but they are not using her consent as a reason for the search and seizure. They refer to it as deception to execute the seizure using the community care taking exception. 

Cops lie all the time... and by lying to the wife they broke no laws, if in fact SCOTUS rules the exception holds. The search would be considered legal whether she consented or not, and thus coercing her to consent by lying is moot. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

How so?

The caretaking exception isn't part of a "red flag" law.  The police had to fall to the caretaking exception because of the faulty permission they got from the wife.  

You're becoming a bore.  So, I'm just going to leave this part of the discussion.  Have at it . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EdF said:

The caretaking exception isn't part of a "red flag" law.  The police had to fall to the caretaking exception because of the faulty permission they got from the wife.  

You're becoming a bore.  So, I'm just going to leave this part of the discussion.  Have at it . . . 

I'm guessing you didn't read the SCOTUS complaint, or the article. Basically everything you claim isnt anywhere to be found in either... 

Of course I'm a bore, who could be bothered with reading the complaint and just pulling an argument out of their ass. 

The red flag laws have been instituted under the constitutionality of the police having reason to believe you will harm yourself or others, using the same caretaking aspect of their duties.. These actions described here are the efforts of police to subvert the courts and ERPO's and use the caretaking exemption to take your guns without even needing a warrant. Since this occurred in 2015, RI didn't have ERPOs. However, SCOTUS can set precedent and require a constitutional test be set prior to confiscation of firearms, that ruling could very well effect how red flag laws are instituted, or worse if they aren't even needed!

 

The cops didn't fall back on anything, they lied to the wife under the guise of using a real exemption that didn't require a warrant. Really not that hard to understand here. Their original report did not at all, ever, state the wife gave permission, and then had to backtrack and find an alternative legal reason. 

Factually speaking, the two arguments of the case are whether a police officer was "reasonable" in the seizure of both the individual and the firearms. Both key stone principles to red flag laws.

Feel free to make the conversation less "boring" by providing citations to your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...