Share This Episode
Outlaw Lawyer Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer Logo

Caniglia v Strom - Your Home is your Castle, or, at least it Should Be?

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer
The Truth Network Radio
May 29, 2021 4:00 pm

Caniglia v Strom - Your Home is your Castle, or, at least it Should Be?

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 52 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

May 29, 2021 4:00 pm

Damion McCullers (the Carolina Counselor) and Josh Whitaker (the Outlaw Lawyer) sit down and analyze the oral arguments that recently took place before the US Supreme Court in regards to Caniglia v. Strom, an interesting trial that goes straight to the heart of the Fourth Amendment. What is the community caretaking exception? Can the King of England come into your house and take your musket? Why can't Josh pronounce last names correctly? What Simpsons episode is Josh reminded of this time? All these questions and more are answered in the most recent episode of Outlaw Lawyers.

See for privacy information.

Chosen Generation
Pastor Greg Young
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Hello Carolina counseling is just waiting for the Lord are welcome to podcast topics today and talk about some things, and when I do it from the perspective of one side or another we are doing it from the perspective of what the take is in the media and what you should do the kind of arm yourself with information and make your own informed choice is important. Damien, we are not here to push a political side. We do not have an agenda. We have our own opinions our own personal thing is to talk about but we are to old seasoned gray attorneys with lager with lots of experience and what we like today when attorneys speak out on is to look at what spring courts do a look at what's going on with the criminal justice system, analyze it as attorneys first.

So with that said first look at some this pretty interesting. Another, keeping an eye on the Supreme Court argument was heard just this past Wednesday that Conigliaro versus strong case.

Quick facts of the case believe Mr. and Mrs. could legally married couple had an argument.

Imagine that and argument.

I think Mr. could have gone on John his fire on East 98 that snapped out of the closet. You'll see here with us lawyers. Words are important. So I don't know in the fact that I really don't know this is a sound but it does say that he went and got his firearm. It was unloaded at the time, placed it on the table probably was a gay very poor attempt at humor because he placed his firearm on the table said just shoot me now so I sent it to his wife, and I think the court that it was unloaded, they did note that it was unloaded so he came in with unloaded gone. I think his wife knew it was unloaded.

He knew it was unloaded so he was just trying to make a probably a bad grade poor attempt at humor or sarcasm which are where you want to call it and sit shoot the after that happens, you know they go I think. Are you becoming things off a little while.

She ultimately leaves just a cut. I think separate the two of them just so everything chemicals off the next morning she called police because she has not heard from him and she was to make sure he has not harmed himself in any way. Please arrive and have a conversation with him believe the ranking officer on scene asked him to go get evaluated.

I think there was some disagreement.

Mr. Conigliaro says he does not need evaluation doesn't mean anything, but after having a conversation with the officer. He agrees while Mr. Conigliaro is off being evaluated. Law enforcement confiscates his pain goes at the home which he did not consent to so so he has that he is out of the house and expect that in his house. He's at the hospital. He agreed to go. The cops have been let in by the wife correct so there in the house with her consent.

I guess yes, I believe, with her consent.

They confiscate his weapons and so those are those are facts and the reason is an issue is because so just in general, how do we love is how do we get to this point has become a loss so after Mr. Conigliaro determines and finds out that his firearms have been confiscated. He goes and asked for them back. I think after being, rebuffed in an offer for refusing to give them to him here involves his attorney and finally gets them back but he sues based on simply the confiscation of the firearms so he sues his lawsuit. It goes to the District Court to go to the Court of Appeals.

They have both sided with him, saying, law enforcement should have done this.

I believe this career is over doing here somewhere under the fourth amendment. So his lawsuit is going to allege that when they seized his weapons. They did so in violation of the fourth amendment correct and if you lawfully on the fourth millionaire in just the folks just just to give you the text of the fourth amendment does not want that have to be the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be see so very very clear there. The fourth amendment that protects us from house. I was listening to a community that protects us from like King of England and taken her stuff but if that's what protects us against unfair, unwarranted searches and seizures and there's an exception to that.

So are Mr. Caligula is saying that when they took his weapons and violated his fourth amendment rights which on the surface makes sense as an internist in the reason Marty make there is an exceptional static section and for you folks out there. You know for terms we always looking at and reading, whether they be criminal procedure, civil procedure, Constitution, or a case law work.

Exceptions have been carved out because there will be that bright line rule always have to be on guard for the exceptions and with the exception here so the argument for the other side of it is that enforcement did this, but they did it under an exception, which is the community caretaker exception with that community caretaker exception.

It would give law enforcement the authority to do exactly what they did and in confiscating firearms under that exception now is been argued and it is being argued that that exception was specifically designed for automobiles and full course and and that is, where I guess the two sides are having this. That's the rub, so to speak, so you'll you'll find out.

449 attorneys for May. For some reason be listening to this Supreme Court will carveout these exceptions with every fact specifics of the Supreme Court is very concerned about facts when they make an exception. Are they carveout something like this. It is fact driven and so that's why in this case. The facts are very very important but but yeah like like Damien said this exception was much as carved out and member the case and so it was actually carved out of the case. Call Katie versus Dombrowski and I believe he said that the court healed under certain circumstances, police may search a motor vehicle without first obtaining a warrant if they are engaged in a community caretaking function and then they go on to college essay that that function is a duty dust, wholly divorced from the investigation of a crime or enforcement of criminal law that's the exceptions card to make a clear state law enforcement here in law enforcement had any leg pain as the bad guys a lot. There's no bad intent here. I don't think by any officer involved a I think they thought they were just keeping maybe the wife say their dresser and prevent anything else was happening less, the that's the balancing act that I think the court has to look at, you know what you do because you absolutely want to keep citizens safe right you know if Mr. Conigliaro was having some form of a breakdown and he has a fire on the certainly not a good environment for him or his wife, and I think that just kinda illustrates the seriousness and kind of the just. Every day in the trenches balancing act that our law enforcement sometimes are fixed. So here I don't have any ill intent of the facts here or nothing is wrong with using the plaintiff so he probably mispronouncing his name in a slightly different ways but he was not breaking any law I mean is not breaking any law he had a involuntarily on the hospital been checked out and I guess he got Pierce at Simpson's where the resistances were Michael Jackson's doing the voice that God doesn't have nothing in my lab not Homer gets a stamp so he's an insane asylum get stuck there is products and he is a stamp. This is not saying that let them guide stamp is not insane. Is there nothing wrong.

I think that thing that the court and talk about it might be interesting as the wife allowed the men to the property, but but but anyway this exception previously been my set for automobiles to the law.

The law enforcement officers what they thought was right, they don't really have a constitutional foundation for what they did so once they got sued for now it's trying to expand his caretaking exception process would look like at happen to me and again that you know when I emphasize, which is you, let you guys know what's in front of the court and let you know what both sides are saying make their own determinations.

But this is this is something that is interesting is going to be ruled on in the next couple of months and it is important to say because we want to be fair to both sides are Mr. Conigliaro did voluntarily go to the hospital. He was checked out and was released with no form of an issue whatsoever that he had done. In this scenario, like he's not you have and his wife are arguing is not. We all did we all do stuff in our product but hasn't done anything illegal to the court in the courts pretty split right now on both both sides in and as you read and study the Supreme Court to find out no matter what's out there on their very they will they work together and people take sides on things you would expect because of political beliefs and is very interesting to watch the court delivering here the court, throughout a lot of hypothetical situations and in oral arguments like they might favor expanding this there's a possibility I may we just don't melamine it.

It's not, one thing that drew me to this case is just reading what happened. Oral arguments in just kinda hearing the questions that the justices passed another were some and aggressive references was as it was good to hear. But it is just another day.

Just about anything at all. Hypotheticals were what if babies are crying for 30 minutes and the constant going there and then they you know there always different hypothetical to get the cops in the house to really do something you probably want a cop if you if you went by my house there's a baby crying for 30 minutes and you can't find mean you can't find a wife like please by all means, but once they're in there and you got is brought exception. It did you know it's important to begin, I want to make it clear that local 4000 a tough job, just in general and dealing with everybody's day-to-day problems and what you do again if you had a baby discard for 30 minutes. At at the outset, it doesn't seem to be apparent around and enter the home will now that point in a mean we talked about with you guys just come about these exceptions, but now what if there is something that's in plain view within driving is just there so many different ways that can go, but we also have to balance that with which one they said I was in a talk about just kind of initially got into this and I missed it but the broader thinking initially and the reason why these exceptions have to be carveout was because generally, the court thinks of your home kind of measure texture. You're free to try to do whatever however whenever within the confines of your home as long as it's not illegal and again goes back to fourth amendment that you should be free from search and seizure with in kind of Castle. So that's the that's the balancing act that the course is, having to deal with carbon on this exception and make sure the community safe and make sure law enforcement has a tool that needs to be able to, effectively do his job, but also keep our citizens safe and abide by the Constitution and stuff them well.

We will get an opinion is oral arguments now so we will get opinion for a couple months. We did get opinion will check back in with the election of what happened is I really do think some of the more interesting cases and it doesn't have a lot of social components to this year. These these often get ignored by the mainstream media for attorneys. This is one of the most interesting to get a minute.

This is done like make attorneys, just powder up and say what was going on here because there is a lot that will flow from whichever way this decision Lane. I got a check back in with you and the opinion comes out so last

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime