Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hojczyk

I am sure it has occurred, but I cannot recall a 9-0 decision in recent years.


3 posted on 05/17/2021 6:59:57 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Never do anything illegal, when you are doing something illegal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Michael.SF.

Im shocked that Kagan and the Wise Latina voted with the majority.


4 posted on 05/17/2021 7:04:09 PM PDT by Husker24 (Pp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Michael.SF.
I am sure it has occurred, but I cannot recall a 9-0 decision in recent years.

They happen all the time. They are not much reported on because they generally are not terribly controversial or revolve around really small nitpicky things.

In this case, the writer is engaging a bit in hyperbole.

While this was an important case, it was based on search and seizure. It is not so much about guns.

Here's my blurb on GAB about it...
The Supreme Court issued an important decision clarifying search and seizure rules today in the case of Caniglia V. Strom et al.

Quoting the opinion:
Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not vio- late the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. 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 un- reasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Alito, J., and Kavanaugh, J., filed concurring opinions

End quote

Thomas' opinion was pretty darn short and to the point. What was more interesting were the concurrences. Kavanaugh's cuncurrance in particular. A quick read through that would tell you that as far as Kavanaugh is concerned, there are endless ways to get around that pesky warrant requirement.

You can read the entirety of the decision here: (it is pretty short as these things go) Caniglia v. Strom.

13 posted on 05/17/2021 8:38:19 PM PDT by zeugma (Stop deluding yourself that America is still a free country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson