Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

CANIGLIA v. STROM 

Opinion of the Court 

Respondents accompanied petitioner’s wife to the home, 
where they encountered petitioner on the porch.  Petitioner 
spoke with respondents and confirmed his wife’s account of 
the argument, but denied that he was suicidal.  Respond-
ents, however, thought that petitioner posed a risk to him-
self  or  others.    They  called  an  ambulance,  and  petitioner
agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation—
but only after respondents allegedly promised not to confis-
cate his firearms.  Once the ambulance had taken petitioner 
away,  however,  respondents  seized  the  weapons.    Guided 
by  petitioner’s  wife—whom  they  allegedly  misinformed 
about his wishes—respondents entered the home and took
two handguns. 

Petitioner  sued,  claiming  that  respondents  violated  the
Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and seized 
him and his firearms without a warrant.  The District Court 
granted summary judgment to respondents, and the First 
Circuit  affirmed  solely  on  the  ground  that  the  decision  to 
remove petitioner and his firearms from the premises fell 
within a “community caretaking exception” to the warrant
requirement.    953  F. 3d  112,  121–123,  131  and  nn. 5,  9 
(2020).  Citing  this  Court’s  statement  in  Cady  that  police
officers often have noncriminal reasons to interact with mo-
torists on “public highways,” 413 U. S., at 441, the First Cir-
cuit extrapolated a freestanding community-caretaking ex-
ception that applies to both cars and homes.  953 F. 3d, at 
124 (“Threats to individual and community safety are not
confined to the highways”).  Accordingly, the First Circuit
saw no need to consider whether anyone had consented to 
respondents’ actions; whether  these actions were justified
by “exigent circumstances”; or whether any state law per-
mitted this kind of mental-health intervention.  Id., at 122– 
123.  All that mattered was that respondents’ efforts to pro-
tect  petitioner  and  those  around  him  were  “distinct  from 
‘the normal work of criminal investigation,’ ” fell “within the 
realm  of  reason,”  and  generally  tracked  what  the  court