.png){kind=small}
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against warrantless searches by police and seizures in the home in a case brought by a man whose guns officers confiscated after a domestic dispute.
"The very core of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and 'there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion,' " Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
The case involved a heated argument between a long-married couple, Edward and Kim Caniglia. He brought out a gun and told her to shoot him to put him out of his "misery."
Then after he left the house in a huff, she hid the gun and spent the night in a motel. The next morning, unable to reach her husband, she asked police to escort her home because she was afraid he might have harmed himself.
There should be an immediate change, retroactivity is another question (eg. does this law count for cases that STARTED, or even in some cases ENDED before the Supreme Court's ruling). Usually, the court does not go full retroactive and extend the right for people already imprisoned for the commission of a crime where police violated this 4th Amendment principle. More often it's allowed in cases that are ongoing. for reference, In cases of Constitutional Law at the Supreme Court the Court is setting the lowest possible level of protection afforded by the Federal Constitution, which applies to the entire USA. There may be states that already have this level of protection each state also has it's own constitution, those can always ADD Citizen's protection above the level of the federal constitution, but not subtract from it. (My home state of Montana has a stronger 4a than the federal system).
When the supreme court makes a ruling like this, how does it effect local police practices a d policies? Is their an immediate change?