I'm not an attorney
Having said that, the initial seizure of the firearms was probably legal under exigent circumstances, especially since the plaintiff was taken to the hospital for the psych evaluation to determine if he was a threat to himself or others. However once he was deemed not be a threat, the police, IN THEORY, were required to return the firearms. Whether the police continued to hold the firearms while they considered filing criminal charges is not mentioned and I don't know if that would be legal or how long the police could hold the firearms under those conditions.
In my cynical opinion, don't hold much hope for some huge pro-gun decision. The Supreme Court will almost certainly tailor their decision on the most narrow interpretation possible, not because it is a 2nd or 4th Amendment issue, but because the Supreme Court dislikes making decisions that have a sweeping effect on U.S. law.
On edit: There is at least once news story that states the wife consented to the search of the house and the seizure of the firearms. Given the poor state of reporting in general, combined with a reporter who probably unfamiliar with the details of the law, I suspect this case is much more complicated than it is being portrayed as in the press.
Last edited by Chantry; 03/28/21 10:47 AM.
