Caniglia v. Strom

Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Criminal Procedure Professors in Support of Petitioner.

Brief filed: 01/15/2021

Documents

Caniglia v. Strom

United States Supreme Court; Case No. 20-157

Prior Decision

Decision below 953 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2020)

Argument(s)

In Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542, 553 (7th Cir. 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed that the distinctions among the exigent circumstances doctrine, the emergency aid doctrine, and the community caretaking doctrine “are not always clear.” In turn, these fuzzy distinctions have led to a “lack of clarity in judicial articulation and application of the three doctrines.” This lack of clarity means that courts deciding whether the community caretaking doctrine should apply to warrantless home entries often think that doctrine is needed to justify entries that are already covered by the exigent circumstances doctrine and/or the emergency aid doctrine. As set forth in this amici brief, this Court’s opinions defining and applying the exigent circumstances and emergency aid doctrines establish that police officers would need to rely on the community caretaking doctrine as an independent justification for warrantless home entries in only two potential situations: to address (1) non-bodily harms such as nuisances; and (2) non-imminent threats of bodily harm. Framed in that fashion, it is clear that a separate and independent rationale such as “community caretaking” – which was generated by the special circumstances attendant to automobile searches – does not justify invasion of the sanctity of the home. Indeed, the way that this Court distinguished its opinion in Coolidge in creating the community caretaking doctrine makes clear that the doctrine does not and should not apply to warrantless home entries. In addition, the capacity for a “community caretaking” exception that permits warrantless searches of the home would invite its use as an end run around the protections of the warrant requirement.

Author(s)

Matthew S. Dawson, Lynch & Pine, Providence, RI; Colin Miller, University of South Carolina Law School; Joshua L. Dratel, Dratel & Lewis, New York, NY.

Explore keywords to find information

RECENTLY ADDED & UPCOMING

  1. The Champion
    March/April 2025 Cover

    March/April 2025

    What are the evidentiary implications of field sobriety tests in marijuana cases? Does the odor of marijuana give officers probable cause to search a vehicle?

  2. Amicus Brief
    March/April 2025 Cover

    Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President

    Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York Council of Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

  3. News Release

    Nation’s Defense Bar Reiterates Opposition to Actions Against Law Firms – Washington, DC (March 18, 2025)

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) remains deeply concerned over recent executive orders targeting law firms, most recently Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie, and repeats its call to uphold the right to counsel and the independence of the legal profession. Despite a ruling blocking the action against Perkins Coie, the administration has continued to target law firms representing disfavored clients and positions, threatening the right to a zealous defense.

  4. Live Event
    2025 Forensic Science & Technology Seminar Cover

    2025 Forensic Science & Technology Seminar

    "Making Sense of Science: Forensic Science, Technology & the Law"

    LOCATION: Sahara Las Vegas Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, NV
    DATES: April 24-26, 2025

  5. Trials, Technology, and the Fourth Amendment: Case Law Review [Engage & Exchange]

    EXCLUSIVE NACDL MEMBER BENEFIT
    WHEN:
    Tuesday, April 29, 2:00-3:30pm ET / 11:00am-12:30pm PT
    CLE CREDIT: not available
    COST: Free

Featured Products