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.

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

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.