Caniglia v. Strom
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Caniglia v. Strom and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Caniglia v. Strom.
In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court addressed whether the 'community caretaking exception' to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement justified warrantless searches and seizures in the home. The case arose after police seized Edward Caniglia's firearms without a warrant following a welfare check. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision, emphasizing the constitutional difference between searches of vehicles and homes.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Caniglia v. Strom.
The Court held that neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Caniglia v. Strom. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Search and Seizure is relevant to Caniglia v. Strom
The case revolves around the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and seizures in the home.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Caniglia sued, claiming that the officers had entered his home and seized him and his firearms without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Caniglia v. Strom that support the summary and concepts above.
Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home.
The very core of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and 'there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.'
A recognition of the existence of 'community caretaking' tasks is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.
