No crime, no warrant

Search and seizure requires a warrant with few exceptions.  A court order is not a warrant.

So, a court order to seize property is unconstitutional unless related to another person having a claim to that property -- divorce decree, civil suit, etc.

Not that difficult.

This ruling has nothing to do with red flag laws. (And you’re in Hawaii)
That’s gonna be a whole ‘nother battle.
Why you always gotta end with an insult ?

My understanding is Red Flag is a protective order, not a warrant.
Looks like a person can protest/contest the order. (Hopefully)

The issue that people have with Red Flag orders, is that you cannot protest/contest it until after they came and confiscated all your firearms and ammo.  So when SSD shows up at your home, the order was already issued and you were not even aware of any court activities about you.  Once they come and take your stuff away, you are not even arrested.  Now you have a court date to prove your innocents. Who knows how long this could take. Months, years, no one knows.

The issue that people have with Red Flag orders, is that you cannot protest/contest it until after they came and confiscated all your firearms and ammo.  So when SSD shows up at your home, the order was already issued and you were not even aware of any court activities about you.  Once they come and take your stuff away, you are not even arrested.  Now you have a court date to prove your innocents. Who knows how long this could take. Months, years, no one knows.

1.  Time is an obvious factor.  Time from work, time to sit in court, time spent submitting to a mental health evaluation, time to confer with a lawyer, ....
2.  You'll need a lawyer. That means $$$$.  Missed work may also cause you to lose income/spend savings you need for other things.
3.  Will your boss find out you were "Red Flagged?"  Whether or not you succeed in fighting the accusations, you might be seen as a risk at work and be fired even before you've had a chance to prevail in court.
4.  How many times have people going through a divorce made false allegations against the other spouse of child abuse, adultery, spousal abuse, drug abuse, and other bad behaviors in order to gain leverage in custody decisions?  Why would red flagging be any different?  You can be wrong and still claim what you SAY you observed was "troubling."

The Supreme Court dismissed the premise that the 4th Amendment's "community caretaking exception" extends to confiscation of personal property without a warrant inside the property owner's home.  The original community caretaking exception case involved a car, which required immediate action since a car is mobile.

Whether or not Hawaii lawmakers take action to change our statutes based on this ruling is irrelevant.  Until someone is red flagged here, there won't be anyone with the standing to challenge the statute.  But, once the police action is deemed unconstitutional in that case, the person involved could easily win a lawsuit for violation of their civil rights, since the state knew of the Supreme Court ruling on warrantless searches and seizures.

Whether or not Hawaii lawmakers take action to change our statutes based on this ruling is irrelevant.  Until someone is red flagged here, there won't be anyone with the standing to challenge the statute.  But, once the police action is deemed unconstitutional in that case, the person involved could easily win a lawsuit for violation of their civil rights, since the state knew of the Supreme Court ruling on warrantless searches and seizures.

Basically a red flag order would have to be done to the type of person who would pursue a lawsuit.  Someone with knowledge and connections.Last red flag that I heard of was that church pastor for the rehab half way house. IDK if he did anything since then.

I knew a guy who worked in a judges office. And he said how many times he saw custody suits and the woman files a TRO just to gain leverage against her ex. Prior to him leaving, the guys were catching on and they too were filing TRO's against the women. So it was a who gets there first is the key.

Basically a red flag order would have to be done to the type of person who would pursue a lawsuit.  Someone with knowledge and connections.Last red flag that I heard of was that church pastor for the rehab half way house. IDK if he did anything since then.

I knew a guy who worked in a judges office. And he said how many times he saw custody suits and the woman files a TRO just to gain leverage against her ex. Prior to him leaving, the guys were catching on and they too were filing TRO's against the women. So it was a who gets there first is the key.

Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case.  Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."

Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.

Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case.  Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."

Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.

and there it is the stalker loophole

victim gets a gun for protection from stalker - stalker disarms victim with red flag law....

Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case.  Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."

Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.

IIRC, it was one of his people who he cared for at the rehab/halfway house that got the red flag done.

Justice Alito disagrees with you, Dumbass.  All you had to do was read the 17 page Supreme Court opinion, but you're too busy being a troll.

Here, since you can't be bothered to gather the FACTS:

So, while he didn't say this ruling directly impacted state red flag laws, he obviously sees the connection between red flag confiscations and the 4th amendment decision in this case.

You just confessed to being wrong, congrats.

He is but one justice,  unless this is brought back up to court the point is moot.  This ruling is not against red flag laws. 

Question: Do you need a warrant to go onto someones property and take their guns away?

Supreme Court:

Question: Do you need a warrant to go onto someones property and take their guns away?

Supreme Court:

So simple ....

Yet, for some it's harder than Chinese Algebra.

and there it is the stalker loophole

victim gets a gun for protection from stalker - stalker disarms victim with red flag law....

Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case.  Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."

Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.

I do not support the red flag law but I don't think it's that easy to have a person red flagged and have their guns taken away.

I do not support the red flag law but I don't think it's that easy to have a person red flagged and have their guns taken away.

Ever heard of being "SWATTED"?  It is that easy!

Ever heard of being "SWATTED"?  It is that easy!

Wonder if they’ll need a warrant to be SWATted now.
That’s some fuked up shit.

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

WRONG !

Ever heard of being "SWATTED"?  It is that easy!

No it's not.

If you want a more in depth and accurate analysis of that particular SCOTUS case and how red flags are only a sliver of what it touches on listen to an actual lawyer who tries civil rights and constitutional law cases, Robert Barnes start explaining it around the 30 min mark.

https://podbay.fm/p/viva-law-podcast/e/1621346179

State of Hawaii: we're taking your guns

Me: no you're not

SoH: uh, yes we are

HPD: *battering ram* knock, knock we're here for your guns

Me: fuck

SoH/HPD: oh so sorry, it's unconstitutional. Our bad. Get a lawyer and you might get them back in a couple years after a lengthy and costly court battle

Me: fuck

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

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.

Did some more looking. A search warrant would be necessary if the piece of evidence were the property of a suspect and to be used in a trial against that suspect. When the evidence desired isn't property of the suspect then generally a subpoena is sufficient to order the person to turn something over.

The curveball as far as I can tell is that mental health issues which may not not follow the same lines. Non criminal cases don't follow all the same standards.

Did some more looking. A search warrant would be necessary if the piece of evidence were the property of a suspect and to be used in a trial against that suspect. When the evidence desired isn't property of the suspect then generally a subpoena is sufficient to order the person to turn something over.

The curveball as far as I can tell is that mental health issues which may not not follow the same lines. Non criminal cases don't follow all the same standards.

By standards, you mean the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

By standards, you mean the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

In a criminal case the courts have to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil case it is the preponderance of evidence which is a lower standard.

In the case of police taking firearms away from a person for mental health reasons, I see no reason the standard would be that of the criminal level.
I would have to find it again but there was a supreme court case that specifically addressed the level of proof necessary to take away someone's freedom due to mental health issues and it was lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have been clear and convincing evidence but again, I would have to find the case again to be certain.