This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

During an argument with his wife at their Rhode Island home, P retrieved a handgun from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and asked his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” She left to spend the night at a hotel. The next morning, when the wife discovered that she could not reach him by telephone, she called Ds to request a welfare check. Ds accompanied the wife to the home and found P on the porch. P denied that he was suicidal. Ds thought that P posed a risk to himself or others. They called an ambulance, and P agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation-but only after Ds allegedly promised not to confiscate his firearms. Ds seized the weapons after P was taken to the hospital. Guided by P’s wife-whom they allegedly misinformed about his wishes-Ds entered the home and took two handguns. Ps sued claiming a violation of the Fourth Amendment as Ds did not have a warrant. The District Court granted summary judgment to Ds, and the First Circuit affirmed. They did so on the ground that the decision to remove P and his firearms from the premises fell within a “community caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement. Ds cited Cady v. Dombrowski. The First Circuit saw no need to consider whether anyone had consented to Ds’ actions; whether these actions were justified by “exigent circumstances”; or whether any state law permitted this kind of mental-health intervention. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.