The 21st Century law enforcement officer serves a variety of public service functions, only some of which involve the enforcement of criminal laws.  From some of those non-criminal public service roles, the courts have recognized the community caretaking doctrine to authorize some limited stops and searches by officers that may not be related to criminal enforcement duties.  Perhaps most commonly, we see this in the area of patrolling the public highways which necessarily includes responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents.  This doctrine allows an officer to conduct a stop or even a search, under limited circumstances, even when the action is not taken in furtherance of the enforcement of criminal laws.  The Supreme Court has recently held that there are definitive limits on the doctrine and that it does not authorize a warrantless search of  residential housing.[1]  Because the Court has now clearly defined the limits on the doctrine, officers should use caution when attempting to justify stops and searches using the community caretaking doctrine.

In Caniglia, the Court evaluated a case where a husband displaced a firearm during a domestic dispute which resulted in his spouse seeking law enforcement intervention to check on his welfare.  Upon the officers’ arrival, the husband agreed to be transported for evaluation on the condition the officers did not seize his firearms.  After he was transported, the officers entered the home guided by the wife and seized two handguns.  It was undisputed that the officers did not believe they were investigating a crime.

In this case, a husband filed suit claiming the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and seized the firearms.  It is well-settled that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.  “The ‘very core’ of this guarantee is ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there to be free form unreasonable governmental intrusion.’ “  The Fourth Amendment does not, however, prohibit all searches or seizures, only the unreasonable ones.  The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the officers based on the community caretaking doctrine, which was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals. 

In rejecting the lower courts’ rationale, the Supreme Court recognized the well-settled distinction between warrantless searches of homes and those of cars.  Distinguishing between the two, the Court expressly rejected the argument that the community caretaking doctrine could authorize a warrantless search of a residence and that to allow it to so, would go beyond anything the Court has previously recognized.  It is important to note that the lower appellate court did not consider the existence of exigent circumstances or the wife’s consent, and it expressly disclaimed the possibility the officers were conducting a criminal investigation.  Therefore, this opinion should be interpreted very narrowly to foreclose the entry into one’s home to seize evidence under the community caretaking doctrine and not under any other recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment.

Because the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, the law in this regard is now clearly established.  Law enforcement officers should take care when investigating incidents involving firearms that may, or may not be, criminal in nature.  They should refrain from conducting any residential searches based on the community caretaking doctrine regardless of the circumstances, because that exception to the Fourth Amendment does not apply to residential housing.  Instead, use of the doctrine should be limited to non-criminal actions related to public safety, motorists and vehicles.[2]  This opinion should not, however, be read to limit an officer’s ability to seize firearms without a warrant from those who seek voluntary or involuntary evaluation, even if from residential housing.  Instead, officers should consider and fully document whether a potential crime exists, and if so, whether there are any recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement for the gathering of evidence from one’s home.  Law enforcement executives and trainers should disseminate this important decision to avoid the potential for future liability.

[1] Caniglia v. Strop, et al, Case _____ U.S._____, 141 S. Ct. 1511 (2021)

[2] Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (authorizing the seizure of a firearm from an impounded vehicle under the community caretaking doctrine).