Civil and Human Rights

Caniglia v. Strom

In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court is considering whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement should extend to the home.

Case Summary

In Cady v. Dombrowski, the Supreme Court held that under certain circumstances, police may search a motor vehicle without first obtaining a warrant if they are engaged in a “community caretaking” function—that is, some duty wholly divorced from the investigation of a crime or enforcement of the criminal laws.  The Court made clear, however, that the exception applied only to motor vehicles and did not extend to people’s homes.  Despite the clear line drawn by the Court, numerous lower courts have extended the community caretaking exception to allow warrantless entries into, and seizures from, people’s homes.

In this case, police officers entered the home of Edward A. Caniglia without a warrant and conducted a search and seizure.  Caniglia sued, alleging the officers had violated, among other things, his Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his home.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the warrantless search and seizure, thus joining those courts which have extended Cady’s community caretaking exception to the home.  Caniglia asked the Supreme Court to hear his case, and the Court agreed to do so.  CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Caniglia, urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling of the First Circuit.

Our brief makes two principal arguments.  First, our brief describes the primacy of the home in the text and history of the Fourth Amendment.  British common law widely recognized the sanctity of the home and severely limited the circumstances in which a home could be entered and searched without a warrant.  The adage “a man’s house is his castle” was not merely a turn of phrase, but an important legal maxim.  The Fourth Amendment incorporated that maxim but also extended it, providing broad protections against unbridled search and seizure in response to the specific abuses the colonists suffered under British rule—namely, the use of general warrants and “writs of assistance” that lacked specificity as to the person and place to be searched and were not based on any individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.

Second, our brief argues that the decision of the First Circuit to extend the community caretaking exception to the home cannot be squared with these core principles.  The decision below fails to recognize the important constitutional difference between cars and homes, undervaluing the sanctity of the home reflected in the text and history of the Fourth Amendment and untethering the community caretaking exception from its justifications.  Moreover, “community caretaking” is a broad and nebulous interest not subject to any meaningful limiting principle.  Allowing the police to invade people’s homes on such an open-ended rationale would invite police to abuse their power in a manner that the Fourth Amendment was specifically designed to guard against.

Case Timeline

  • January 15, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    Sup. Ct. Amicus Br.
  • March 24, 2021

    The Supreme Court will hear oral argument

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 7, 2020

The Art of Suffrage: Cartoons Reflect America’s Struggle for Equal Voting Rights

Content Warning to Readers: Some quotations of image captions in this post contain offensive and...
By: Tekla Taylor
Civil and Human Rights
November 4, 2020

RELEASE: Challengers’ Argument In Fulton Could “Require Governments To Allow All Manner Of Discrimination”

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument this morning in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Constitutional Accountability...
Civil and Human Rights
October 1, 2020

The 19th Amendment and Our Unfinished Work

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center
As our nation mourns the loss of Justice Ginsburg—a stalwart champion for gender equality and...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Praveen Fernandes, Catherine E. Lhamon, Jocelyn Frye
Civil and Human Rights
August 21, 2020

The Fate of Anti-Discrimination Laws Lies With the Supreme Court

During the October 2020 term, the Supreme Court is set to take up some extremely...
By: Becca Damante
Civil and Human Rights
August 21, 2020

OP-ED: This 19th Amendment Centennial, Ensure that Votes of Black Women Matter

As a woman and constitutional lawyer, I have long held special reverence for the 19th...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Philadelphia to contract with a private agency to provide foster-parent services even though that agency refuses to comply...