‘Just Shoot Me’ Plea Brought the Police, and High Court Battle

WASHINGTON (CN) — When a 68-year-old man brought out his gun while arguing with his wife, asking her to put him out of his misery, the involvement of police set off a years-long constitutional challenge now entering its final stretch. 

“Respondents’ warrantless seizure of the petitioner from his home, and their subsequent seizures of his lawfully possessed guns from his bedroom and his garage violated the Fourth Amendment,” Shay Dvoretzky, a lawyer with Skadden Arps, told the Supreme Court in virtual oral arguments Wednesday. 

Dvoretzky represents Edward Caniglia, who had acquired all his guns legally and had no criminal history or record of violence.

Police showed up at his door in Cranston, Rhode Island, one morning in 2015 after his wife requested a wellness check and an escort home. Kim Caniglia had spent the night prior in a motel after their fight, and she was worried when her husband wouldn’t answer the phone. 

The argument began when Mr. Caniglia joked to his wife that he didn’t want to use a coffee mug after his brother-in-law because he “might catch a case of dishonesty.” Things got so heated that Mr. Caniglia stormed off to the bedroom, grabbed an unloaded handgun, brought it to the kitchen, slammed it on a table and asked, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” 

The next day, according to the complaint he would later file, Mr. Caniglia appeared normal and polite when he found police at his door. Because the officers thought it still possible that he could harm himself or others, however, they wanted him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the hospital. Mr. Caniglia says he only agreed to this because the officers said they would not confiscate his guns. 

Officers who were at the scene don’t recall that agreement. Instead, they had Mrs. Caniglia show them where he kept his guns and confiscated them. They later said that since Mrs. Caniglia legally co-owned the guns, she gave the police consent to take them away. 

Caniglia seeks a reversal after the First Circuit affirmed dismissal of his suit against the city of Cranston and its officials. Citing the Seventh Circuit's 1973 decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure fell under the community caretaking exception. Because there was a perceived threat of harm, the officers were within their right to confiscate his guns. 

Dvoretzky argued Wednesday that Cady only applies to cars, not homes. “Nearly every page of the court’s decision relies on the constitutional differences between cars and houses,” he said. 

He also argued that allowing police officers to search people’s homes without warrants just because they think there’s a threat to public safety opens the door to all kinds of intrusions.  

“Nearly every criminal violation has public safety implications,” he said, “so dispensing of the warrant requirement whenever the police can point to a health or safety motive would eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.” Gun associations, criminal defense lawyers and privacy rights organizations across the country have submitted amicus briefs supporting the case. 

Marc DeSisto of Desisto Law, arguing on behalf of Cranston, said that this claim is too “absolute.” 

“There may be circumstances that allow for caretaking in the home absent a warrant,” he said. “Time could be of the essence.” He used someone who lives alone and hasn’t gotten their mail in a few days as an example. Is that enough of a reason for the police to enter the home without a warrant? “The potential harm is not so clear, and the need to respond could be immediate.” 

Chief Justice Roberts used a more benign example: a cat stuck in a tree. “Let’s suppose, Mr. DeSisto, that police get a call from a neighbor that says, ‘The Johnsons are away. I know they’re not here, and they’ve got this fence around their backyard. It’s locked. But there’s a cat up in a tree. Can you come and help get the cat down?’ Is that community caretaking?” he asked.  

Yes, DeSisto argued, because the intrusion — say, hopping the fence to reach the tree — doesn't impair the Johnsons’ right to privacy. 

Morgan Ratner, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, agreed, arguing that the case has more to do with the substance of community caretaking rather than the label. “The key principle is,” she said, “if someone is at risk of serious harm, and it’s reasonable for officials to intervene now, that is enough.” 

The case could have wide-reaching implications on how the police respond to wellness checks — and if they should be the ones to do so at all. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a hypothetical scenario inspired by recent calls for police reform: What if a social worker, instead of a police officer, were to show up for a wellness check? "My question is, would that satisfy the Fourth Amendment?” she asked. 

It might, Dvoretzky said, because the social worker could be better equipped to detect an emergency. 

Ultimately, Caniglia believes that police officers shouldn't have unilateral authority on whether they can enter your home. “We’re not saying that police officers can never enter,” his lawyer Dvoretzky said. “We’re just saying that they need consent, a warrant, or an emergency.” 

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit