1

Majority Opinion

Student Name

Institution

Course Code

Professor

Date of Submission
 2

Majority Opinion

Introduction

Questions Presented

The questions presented in this case are related to the community caretaking exception to

the warrant requirement. The first question is whether using this exception to justify an invasion

into James Henry's home without a warrant or consent violated his 4th Amendment rights as

selectively incorporated by the 14th Amendment. The second question is whether using this

exception to justify the seizure of other unrelated items in one's home violates the 4th

Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as selectively incorporated by

the 14th Amendment.

Background of the Case

The case's background includes the circumstances that led to the search of James Henry's

home. A taxi driver called 911 after dropping off James Henry, who left much blood in his

backseat. The police searched for Henry through backyards and the garage and finally found him

in critical condition, along with a kilogram of cocaine next to him. After giving Henry medical

care, he was also charged with drug possession and filed a suit alleging that the drugs were found

in an illegal search and seizure.

Henry’s argument raises crucial questions about the constitutionality of applying the

community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Henry acknowledges that the

community caretaking exception has limitations when applied to one's home, as it is the location

that has the most protection. This difference is addressed in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021, where it

was held that the caretaking exception is not a "standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless
 3

searches and seizures in the home." Justice Thomas also discusses that "what is reasonable for

vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes."

Statement of Facts

Taxi driver James Henry, 32, from Green Hills, Tennessee, reported seeing blood in his

cab and was later found brutally injured in the basement of his house. The Metro Police

Department's Officers Clinton and Barron investigated where the taxi dropped off the man and

found an unlocked garage door to the home's kitchen. They found James Henry sleeping beside a

kilogram of cocaine on the bed. Henry claimed an illegal search led to the discovery of the drugs

he was accused of carrying.

According to Justice Thomas, there must be "exigent circumstances" for police to enter

private property without a warrant, such as a requirement to "render emergency assistance to an

injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury." The ruling in Kentucky v.

King supported this. In Caniglia, the concurring opinions agreed that the community caretaking

exception should be applied in emergencies. Justice Alito cited the Chief Justice's hypothetical

situation, where neighbors of an older woman call the police expressing concern about her

absence, suggesting that the police enter her home without a warrant to check on her well-being.

Alito expanded on the hypothetical, stating that the woman would not have wanted her home to

be where she would die if she were seriously hurt or sick.

Legal analysis

The petitioner, in this case, argued that the community caretaking exception has

limitations when applied to one's home, as the home has the most protection under the castle

doctrine, in contrast to a vehicular setting, which serves as an exception to the warrant

 4

requirement. Caniglia v. Strom (2021), in which the Supreme Court considered this issue,

concluded that the community caretaking exception does not support unwarranted searches and

seizures in the house. The Court made this decision. In his opinion, Justice Thomas underlined

that the fundamental principle underlying the Fourth Amendment is "the right of a man to retreat

into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."

The Respondent contends that the community caretaking exception is restricted in its

application to a person's house because a person's residence enjoys the highest level of legal

protection (the castle doctrine) compared to a vehicle environment. In the case of Caniglia v.

Strom, Justice Thomas said that the "caretaking exception" is not a "standalone doctrine that

justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home" and that "what is reasonable for vehicles

is different from what is reasonable for homes." Because "what is reasonable for vehicles is

different from what is reasonable for homes." The brief refers to this specific instance. In brief,

Thomas cites Kentucky v. King as evidence that law enforcement officers can enter private

property without a warrant in certain urgent circumstances (FindLaw, nd). One of these

circumstances is when it is necessary to "render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or

to protect an occupant from imminent injury."

The Respondent addresses what is reasonable for residences, which was addressed in the

judgment written by Justice Thomas and the concurring opinions included in Caniglia. The

memorandum observes that the concurring views included within the case had the same feelings

toward urgent situations. In its conclusion, the brief observes that the case involving James

Henry raises significant concerns about the legitimacy of applying the community caretaking

exemption to the warrant requirement.

Holding
 5

The case Tennessee v. Henry highlighted these issues and called into question the

legitimacy of the exemption for community caretaking from the necessity to get a warrant.

Taking unrelated things from James Henry's house without a warrant or his willingness to

complete the criteria of the community caretaking exemption to the warrant requirement raised

questions about compliance with the Fourth Amendment's restriction on arbitrary searches and

seizures. The exemption from the warrant requirement for community caretaking is in dispute

here. The concept that everyone should have the right to withdraw to their own houses without

the fear of excessive government surveillance was the driving force behind the passage of the

Fourth Amendment (Henderson, 2019). However, the Supreme Court has decided that law

enforcement personnel can enter private property without a warrant if "exigent circumstances"

exist, such as needing medical assistance for a wounded tenant or safeguarding public safety.

Reasoning

The Respondent argues that James Henry's case raises questions about the

constitutionality of the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. The first

question is whether using this exception to justify an invasion into Henry's home without a

warrant or consent violated his 4th Amendment rights as selectively incorporated by the 14th

Amendment. The Respondent argues that while community caretaking was established in Cady

v. Dombrowski, the community caretaking exception has limitations when applied to one's

home, which has the most protection (castle doctrine). Caniglia v. Strom, in which Justice

Thomas distinguishes between car and house situations, focuses on the essence of the 4th

Amendment, which is the freedom of an individual to retire within his home and be free from

undue state interference. The Court has also ruled that law enforcement personnel may enter
 6

private property without a warrant if they reasonably suspect they are in danger or that someone

inside needs immediate medical attention.

 7

References

Cady v. Dombrowski | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. (n.d.). Community.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-cady-v-dombrowski

Caniglia v. Strom | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. (n.d.). Community.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-caniglia-v-

strom#:~:text=Caniglia%20sued%2C%20claiming%20that%20the,Court's%20decision

%20in%20Cady%20v.

FindLaw. (n.d.). FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/09-1272.html

Henderson, J., & Bench-Capon, T. (2019). Describing the development of case law. In

Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law

(pp. 32-41).