Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.

Police must have a valid warrant in order to seize private property, specifically guns, from an owner.  Without a warrant, the seizure is unconstitutional.

Many current red flag laws that include a "hearing" issue an "order" to confiscate guns pending a mental fitness exam.  A court order is NOT a warrant.  Warrants require that a crime has been committed, or a crime is suspected to have been committed.  Red flag laws are intended to take guns from people BEFORE any crime has been committed.

This was not a ruling that split along ideological lines.  It was UNANIMOUS! 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-fourth-amendment-case-firearms/index.html

Looks this like this will also stop the age old game of cops doing cash seizures and forcing you to prove the money is legit. IIRC there are podunk towns in the middle of nowhere that used to survive on confiscating  from folks rolling thru their town on the way to somewhere else.

I suddenly feel a need to celebrate some Freedoms

Best take I have seen on this ruling.

Now someone please take a warrantless FISA electronic surveillance case to court on this issue.

Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.

Police must have a valid warrant in order to seize private property, specifically guns, from an owner.  Without a warrant, the seizure is unconstitutional.

Many current red flag laws that include a "hearing" issue an "order" to confiscate guns pending a mental fitness exam.  A court order is NOT a warrant.  Warrants require that a crime has been committed, or a crime is suspected to have been committed.  Red flag laws are intended to take guns from people BEFORE any crime has been committed.

This was not a ruling that split along ideological lines.  It was UNANIMOUS! 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-fourth-amendment-case-firearms/index.html

Problem is that this is Hawaii.  The American Constitution doesn't mean what it says,
it means what Democrat Party says it means.
Confiscations will continue,  You will go broke going to court, and losing time at work.

Property taxes pay for most of the costs of the government, to be used against you. 
They don't care if they lose the court case, your guns will be rusted when you finally get them back
in a few years.  They consider that a win, even if you were to win a lawsuit, the cops don't care,
they don't pay the settlement,  Taxpayers do. 

Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.

Police must have a valid warrant in order to seize private property, specifically guns, from an owner.  Without a warrant, the seizure is unconstitutional.

Many current red flag laws that include a "hearing" issue an "order" to confiscate guns pending a mental fitness exam.  A court order is NOT a warrant.  Warrants require that a crime has been committed, or a crime is suspected to have been committed.  Red flag laws are intended to take guns from people BEFORE any crime has been committed.

This was not a ruling that split along ideological lines.  It was UNANIMOUS! 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-fourth-amendment-case-firearms/index.html

It doesn't seem that the SCOTUS specifically said a warrant was necessary to take firearms, at least not from the articles I have read. It seems the search was more the issue than the seizure.

However it does seem to clearly indicate that cops can't go searching your home for firearms without a warrant, especially with such weak cause. If officers found the man holding the firearm when they went to check on him they may have been allowed to take the firearm, I didn't see that specific question addressed. This may or may not affect red flag laws, probably depends on how they are written.

surprised that this is reported on CNN, don't see it on Fox or OAN or NewsMax.

from the CNN article, it does sound seriously hopeful, but then, it's CNN, and it's also democrat high times.  I don't have high hopes.

It doesn't seem that the SCOTUS specifically said a warrant was necessary to take firearms, at least not from the articles I have read. It seems the search was more the issue than the seizure.

However it does seem to clearly indicate that cops can't go searching your home for firearms without a warrant, especially with such weak cause. If officers found the man holding the firearm when they went to check on him they may have been allowed to take the firearm, I didn't see that specific question addressed. This may or may not affect red flag laws, probably depends on how they are written.

You are splitting hairs.

There was no search in this case.  The police asked the wife to let them in and she showed them where the guns were:  2 pistols.  The Cops lied to the man saying they would not confiscate his guns to get him to board the ambulance, and then they lied to the wife saying the man volunteered to surrender his firearms before he was driven away.

Search warrants, to my understanding, are issued normally to seize property as it relates to a crime -- i.e. evidence.  The ruling was explicit that the SEIZURE of the guns, not just the search, was unconstitutional.

The Constitution requires a warrant to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures COMBINED.  The petitioner alleged the police seized his guns unlawfully.  The complaint was not about illegal entry, since his wife allowed the police to enter.

From the Court's Opinion:

Respondents accompanied petitioner’s wife to the home,
where they encountered petitioner on the porch. Petitioner
spoke with respondents and confirmed his wife’s account of
the argument, but denied that he was suicidal. Respondents,
however, thought that petitioner posed a risk to himself or others.
They called an ambulance, and petitioner
agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation—
but only after respondents allegedly promised not to confiscate
his firearms. Once the ambulance had taken petitioner
away, however, respondents seized the weapons. Guided
by petitioner’s wife—whom they allegedly misinformed
about his wishes—respondents entered the home and took
two handguns.
Petitioner sued, claiming that respondents violated the
Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and seized
him and his firearms without a warrant.

I think EEF may be right.

The red flag law in Hawaii requires a petitioner to petition the court for an emergency protective order.
Once the protective order is granted, the Popo can confiscate your firearms.
They won’t need to search as they will have all your registration records and can just show up and ask for all your guns based on your registrations.
(Similar to TRO I would imagine.)

Just how I read it and I am no attorney.

Interesting website from attorney who does firearm defenses.

https://www.kevinogradylaw.com/firearms/

Cops are never your friend. Even if they are your friend. They will always do the biding of the government and WILL lie to do so

Quote
Respondents accompanied petitioner’s wife to the home,
where they encountered petitioner on the porch. Petitioner
spoke with respondents and confirmed his wife’s account of
the argument, but denied that he was suicidal. Respondents,
however, thought that petitioner posed a risk to himself or others.
They called an ambulance, and petitioner
agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation—
but only after respondents allegedly promised not to confiscate
his firearms. Once the ambulance had taken petitioner
away, however, respondents seized the weapons. Guided
by petitioner’s wife—whom they allegedly misinformed
about his wishes—respondents entered the home and took
two handguns.
Petitioner sued, claiming that respondents violated the
Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and seized
him and his firearms without a warrant.

Cops are never your friend. Even if they are your friend. They will always do the biding of the government and WILL lie to do so

You’re forgetting this is Hawaii.

Cops are never your friend. Even if they are your friend.... Unless they ARE your friend or relative. Then have them on speed dial in case of traffic stop.

Many cops are friends.  Not everyone is out to get you....there are good cops and bad.  Its a job, not a personality or secret agenda.

I think EEF may be right.

The red flag law in Hawaii requires a petitioner to petition the court for an emergency protective order.
Once the protective order is granted, the Popo can confiscate your firearms.
They won’t need to search as they will have all your registration records and can just show up and ask for all your guns based on your registrations.
(Similar to TRO I would imagine.)

Just how I read it and I am no attorney.

Interesting website from attorney who does firearm defenses.

https://www.kevinogradylaw.com/firearms/

Kevin showed up to our rally we had in front the kamehameha statue a few months ago.

It doesn't seem that the SCOTUS specifically said a warrant was necessary to take firearms, at least not from the articles I have read. It seems the search was more the issue than the seizure.

I think EEF may be right.

The red flag law in Hawaii requires a petitioner to petition the court for an emergency protective order.
Once the protective order is granted, the Popo can confiscate your firearms.
They won’t need to search as they will have all your registration records and can just show up and ask for all your guns based on your registrations.
(Similar to TRO I would imagine.)

Just how I read it and I am no attorney.

Interesting website from attorney who does firearm defenses.

https://www.kevinogradylaw.com/firearms/

EEF said the opinion was more about the search.

You said EEF was right, and that Hawaii police won't have to search, because they know you have particular firearms.

EEF was wrong.  "Search and seizure" are combined in the 4th amendment.  Can't do EITHER without a warrant, and the Supreme Court said exactly that.

A Hawaii court issuing a protective order is NOT a warrant.  If they issue such an order to confiscate guns without a warrant, it is unconstitutional on its face.

Don't have to be a lawyer.

You are splitting hairs.

There was no search in this case.  The police asked the wife to let them in and she showed them where the guns were:  2 pistols.  The Cops lied to the man saying they would not confiscate his guns to get him to board the ambulance, and then they lied to the wife saying the man volunteered to surrender his firearms before he was driven away.

Search warrants, to my understanding, are issued normally to seize property as it relates to a crime -- i.e. evidence.  The ruling was explicit that the SEIZURE of the guns, not just the search, was unconstitutional.

The Constitution requires a warrant to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures COMBINED.  The petitioner alleged the police seized his guns unlawfully.  The complaint was not about illegal entry, since his wife allowed the police to enter.

From the Court's Opinion:

After reading the decision again the justices did indeed discuss both the search and the seizure.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Even with permission from the wife it could still constitute a search. The wife can invite cops into the home but that doesn't waive any and all rights the husband still had to privacy. If the wife brought the guns out then it wasn't even a  search but just a seizure. Sometimes a seizure can be justified but not a search, depends on the circumstances.

What I was getting at though is that if the firearms are present and in open/plain view when the officers are there then the issue is seizure, not a search. That's why I gave the scenario of if the man had the firearm with him/next to him when they arrived that a search would not be part of the equation. You are right that both search and seizure are protected by the 4th amendment but I don't think they are subject to a warrant the same way. There are exemptions to both and can apply differently. This is where the specifics of the individual case come into play.

One interesting thing Alito points out but then doesn't dive into is whether we are to use the criminal law standard when it comes to search and seizure of something of a non-criminal nature, such as taking this guy's firearms. I remember reading another SCOTUS case which stated that taking away someone's rights related to a mental health issue was a lower standard than putting them in jail for a criminal charge. Not sure how this plays into this case though either since it wasn't taking custody of a person but taking belongings of him.


Now as it relates to red flag laws I don't know that the 4th amendment only allows for warrants to take guns, as opposed to a court order. Subpoenas are regularly used to order people or companies to turn evidence over to police and they are not search warrants. I don't know the exact difference of when one is needed vs the other but I believe that if someone is accused of a crime and you are searching something of theirs that a search warrant is needed. However it gets more complicated when joint ownership is at play. If someone used their bank account to steal money from the bank then the bank can give you the records themselves but if the bank is not a party to the crime then a subpoena or search warrant is generally required. I am trying to find a specific explanation of when someone else can give cops permission to search jointly held property vs when they can't.

After reading the decision again the justices did indeed discuss both the search and the seizure.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Even with permission from the wife it could still constitute a search. The wife can invite cops into the home but that doesn't waive any and all rights the husband still had to privacy. If the wife brought the guns out then it wasn't even a  search but just a seizure. Sometimes a seizure can be justified but not a search, depends on the circumstances.

What I was getting at though is that if the firearms are present and in open/plain view when the officers are there then the issue is seizure, not a search. That's why I gave the scenario of if the man had the firearm with him/next to him when they arrived that a search would not be part of the equation. You are right that both search and seizure are protected by the 4th amendment but I don't think they are subject to a warrant the same way. There are exemptions to both and can apply differently. This is where the specifics of the individual case come into play.

One interesting thing Alito points out but then doesn't dive into is whether we are to use the criminal law standard when it comes to search and seizure of something of a non-criminal nature, such as taking this guy's firearms. I remember reading another SCOTUS case which stated that taking away someone's rights related to a mental health issue was a lower standard than putting them in jail for a criminal charge. Not sure how this plays into this case though either since it wasn't taking custody of a person but taking belongings of him.


Now as it relates to red flag laws I don't know that the 4th amendment only allows for warrants to take guns, as opposed to a court order. Subpoenas are regularly used to order people or companies to turn evidence over to police and they are not search warrants. I don't know the exact difference of when one is needed vs the other but I believe that if someone is accused of a crime and you are searching something of theirs that a search warrant is needed. However it gets more complicated when joint ownership is at play. If someone used their bank account to steal money from the bank then the bank can give you the records themselves but if the bank is not a party to the crime then a subpoena or search warrant is generally required. I am trying to find a specific explanation of when someone else can give cops permission to search jointly held property vs when they can't.

A subpoena is a court order, not a warrant.  If you disobey a subpoena, you can be charged with criminal contempt of court.  If you destroy the evidence named in the subpoena, you can be arrested for obstruction and destruction of evidence -- unless your name is Clinton.

Warrants are necessary when there is a good chance the evidence will be lost otherwise.  But, there must be probable cause that a crime was or will be committed.  In red flag cases, that would be rare unless the person made credible threats.

Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.

This may or may not affect red flag laws, probably depends on how they are written.

EEF might be right.
Followed by my above comment.

Kevin showed up to our rally we had in front the kamehameha statue a few months ago.

Right On. Good to know. 

In order for there to be a warrant there has to be a crime.

EEF might be right.
Followed by my above comment.

Logically, EEF might be wrong, too.

The appropriate response would now be:  So what?