Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

2 

CANIGLIA v. STROM 

ALITO, J., concurring 

conducted for non-law-enforcement purposes must be ana-
lyzed  under  precisely  the  same  Fourth  Amendment  rules
developed in criminal cases.  Those rules may or may not be 
appropriate  for  use  in  various  non-criminal-law-enforce-
ment contexts.  We do not decide that issue today.

3.  This case falls within one important category of cases 
that  could  be  viewed  as  involving  community  caretaking:
conducting a search or seizure for the purpose of preventing 
a  person  from  committing  suicide.  Assuming  that  peti-
tioner did not voluntarily consent to go with the officers for
a  psychological  assessment,1  he  was  seized  and  thus  sub-
jected to a serious deprivation of liberty.  But was this war-
rantless  seizure  “reasonable”?  We  have  addressed  the 
standards required by due process for involuntary commit-
ment to a mental treatment facility, see Addington v. Texas, 
441 U. S. 418, 427 (1979); see also O’Connor v. Donaldson, 
422  U. S.  563,  574–576  (1975);  Foucha  v.  Louisiana,  504 
U. S.  71,  75–77,  83  (1992),  but  we  have  not  addressed 
Fourth  Amendment  restrictions  on  seizures  like  the  one 
that we must assume occurred here, i.e., a short-term sei-
zure  conducted  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  a 
person presents an imminent risk of suicide.  Every State
has laws allowing emergency seizures for psychiatric treat-
ment, observation, or stabilization, but these laws vary in 
many respects, including the categories of persons who may
request the emergency action, the reasons that can justify 
the  action,  the  necessity  of  a  judicial  proceeding,  and  the
nature of the proceeding.2  Mentioning these laws only in 
passing, petitioner asked us to render a decision that could 

—————— 

1 The Court of Appeals assumed petitioner’s consent was not voluntary 
because the police allegedly promised that they would not seize his guns 
if he went for a psychological evaluation.  953 F. 3d 112, 121 (CA1 2020).
The Court does not decide whether this assumption was justified. 

2 See  Brief  for Petitioner  38–39,  n. 4  (gathering  state  authorities);  L. 
Hedman et al., State Laws on Emergency Holds for Mental Health Sta-
bilization,  67 Psychiatric Servs. 579 (2016).