Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

ALITO, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–157 
_________________ 

EDWARD A. CANIGLIA, PETITIONER v. 
ROBERT F. STROM, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

[May 17, 2021] 

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. 
I join the opinion of the Court but write separately to ex-
plain my understanding of the Court’s holding and to high-
light some important questions that the Court does not de-
cide. 

1.  The Court holds—and I entirely agree—that there is 
no special Fourth Amendment rule for a broad category of 
cases involving “community caretaking.”  As I understand 
the term, it describes the many police tasks that go beyond
criminal  law  enforcement.    These  tasks  vary  widely,  and 
there is no clear limit on how far they might extend in the 
future.  The category potentially includes any non-law-en-
forcement  work  that  a  community  chooses  to  assign,  and
because of the breadth of activities that may be described
as community caretaking, we should not assume that the 
Fourth  Amendment’s  command  of  reasonableness  applies
in the same way to everything that might be viewed as fall-
ing into this broad category.

The  Court’s  decision  in  Cady  v.  Dombrowski,  413  U. S. 
433  (1973),  did  not  recognize  any  such  “freestanding” 
Fourth Amendment category.  See ante, at 2, 4.  The opinion
merely used the phrase “community caretaking” in passing.
413 U. S., at 441. 

2.  While there is no overarching “community caretaking”
doctrine,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  searches  and  seizures