On Monday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, which unanimously held that a lower court’s extension of Cady v. Dombrowski’s “community caretaking” exception into the home defied the logic and holding of Cady, as well as violated the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. With the court’s unanimity in Caniglia, the home remains the most sacred space under the Fourth Amendment; its sanctity literally houses its privilege. Sans warrant, exigency or consent, governmental search and seizure within it is unconstitutional.
A pithy four pages “long,” the opinion was unanimous and unambiguous: If police do not have the homeowner’s consent, an “exigent” circumstance, or a judicial warrant authorizing a search, then no version of Cady’s car exception applies to police entry into the home under the Fourth Amendment. “What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Thomas wrote.
As always with realty – and, per Caniglia, the court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence — location matters. Specifically, the location of Cady’s warrantless search and seizure – a post-accident, routine search of an intoxicated, off-duty officer’s damaged and impounded car — simply cannot compare to a search of and seizure within a home. Governmental searches of vehicles regularly occur via exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement; a myriad of decisions have constitutionalized warrantless searches of vehicles, their compartments, their containers and even their occupants. Not one of these warrantless exceptions is available for the home.
Accordingly, caretaking under Cady is not carte blanche for police to search or seize within the home, nor do their “caretaking” duties create a “standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home,” Thomas wrote. Cady, itself, he noted, drew an “unmistakable distinction between vehicles and homes,” constitutionally embedding the exception outside the home.
And in case you didn’t think SCOTUS had beclowned itself enough, they also released this ruling.
WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court delivered an unexpected reprieve to civil rights groups Thursday, ruling that housing discrimination need not be intentional in order to be illegal.
The justices said people objecting to lending, zoning, sales and rental practices can base their legal claim on the disparate impact those practices have on blacks or other minorities.
You got it. The government can still whack you for housing discrimination even if you weren’t intentionally discriminating.
I can’t say much more than Scalia already did. The Supreme Court beclowned itself in its Obamacare ruling and rendered themselves just another political judicial body. Unfortunately, it’s one with lifetime appointments.
On the argument the state subsidies violates the act:
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State. You would think the answer be obvious — so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a state.”
And he added…
“The Court solves that problem (believe it or not) by simply saying that federal exchanges count as state exchanges only…for purposes of the tax credits. How wonderfully convenient and how utterly contrary to normal principles of interpretation.”