Switch to ADA Accessible Website
Orlando Criminal Lawyer

Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Police Cannot Search Private Homes Under “Community Caretaking” Exception


Police often provide “community caretaking” functions that are not necessarily related to law enforcement. For example, police often respond to calls to assist a person who may be missing or otherwise in distress. As a general rule, a police officer does not require any sort of warrant to perform these caretaking functions. At the same time, the fact that an officer renders such aid does not automatically create an exception to the Fourth Amendment rules governing searches and seizures of potential evidence for use in a criminal investigation.

Rhode Island Man Sues to Get His Guns Back Following Police “Welfare Check”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified this point in a decision, Caniglia v. Strom, where the justices unanimously rejected the idea of a broad community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements. The specific case before the Court originated in Rhode Island. A man argued with his wife. The argument escalated to the point where the man–the petitioner in this case–retrieved a handgun from his bedroom, placed it on a table, and asked his wife to “shoot me now and get it over with.”

Obviously, the wife did not shoot the petitioner. Instead, she left the house and spent the night at a hotel. The next day, when the wife was unable to reach the petitioner on the phone, she called the local police to request a “welfare check” of her husband.

Officers subsequently accompanied the wife back to her house. The petitioner was on the porch. He spoke to police and denied he was suicidal. The police nevertheless believed the petitioner to be a “risk to himself or others.” The officers convinced the petitioner to go to the hospital. After the ambulance took him away, the officers entered the petitioner’s home and seized two handguns.

The petitioner subsequently sued the officers for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The lower courts dismissed the case. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston held the officers’ actions fell within a broad “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment. The petitioner then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, said the First Circuit’s ruling “goes beyond anything this Court has recognized” with respect to community caretaking. The officers had neither a search warrant nor the petitioner’s consent to enter his house. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented in the lower courts to suggest there were exigent (emergency) circumstances to justify a warrantless search. While the Court has previously authorized police to search impounded vehicles for weapons–an extension of their role in patrolling public highways–Thomas said the same principle did not apply to warrantless searches of private residences.

Contact Florida Civil Rights Lawyer Jose Baez Today

The Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that just because the police are asked to perform a welfare check on a person who may be in distress, that is not a license to search their home or seize their property. If the police have violated your rights in this manner and you need legal advice or representation from a qualified Orlando civil rights attorney, contact the Baez Law Firm today.



  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Miami Office

1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410
Miami, FL 33131
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111

Orlando Office

250 N Orange Ave, Suite 750
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms
Please review the highlighted fields. They are required.
DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2024 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website and legal marketing are managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab