Second and Fourth Amendment Considerations in Warrantless Seizure and Seizure and Retention of Firearms during a Mental Health Crisis

Facts of the Case

In January 2013, San Jose police officers conducted a welfare check on Edward Rodriguez at the request of his wife, Lori Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez was known to have a mental illness and own firearms. Upon officers' arrival, he was ranting about the CIA, the army, others watching him, “shooting up schools,” and firearms that he had in a safe. He was deemed to be in a mental health crisis. Pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) § 5150 (2013), he was detained for a mental health evaluation. Under WIC § 5150, qualified personnel may involuntarily detain an individual deemed at risk of danger to self or others for up to 72 hours for the purpose of psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

Police officers spoke with Mrs. Rodriguez, and, without a warrant, confiscated 12 firearms from the household pursuant to WIC § 8102 (2014). When an individual is detained pursuant to WIC § 5150, WIC § 8102 requires law enforcement personnel to confiscate firearms and other deadly weapons owned, possessed, or controlled by that individual. Mrs. Rodriguez provided the keys and combination code to the safe. One handgun was registered to her alone. The other eleven were registered to Mr. Rodriguez or were unregistered. Mr. Rodriguez was psychiatrically hospitalized for one week. One month later, the City of San Jose petitioned to the California Superior Court pursuant to WIC § 8102 that the guns be forfeited. The city argued returning these would endanger Mr. Rodriguez or other members of the public. Mrs. Rodriguez objected, claiming ownership of her personal handgun, and community property ownership of the others, and that forced forfeiture violated her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The California Superior Court granted the city's petition. The state trial court reasoned that, given public safety concerns, the city could seize the “low hanging fruit” of firearms owned by the Rodriguez couple. This did not preclude Mrs. Rodriguez's ability to buy and possess new firearms. Thus, it did not ignore or violate her Second Amendment right. Mrs. Rodriguez appealed, but the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that Mrs. Rodriguez had “other viable options” such as selling or storing the guns outside of the home, and she could follow procedure outlined in California Penal Code § 33850 et seq. (2010) for return of her firearms.

Mrs. Rodriguez followed the procedure outlined under California Penal Code § 33850 et seq. and sought return of the firearms. She reregistered all firearms under her name only. She obtained a gun release clearance from the California Department of Justice. She again petitioned the city to return the firearms but was denied. She sued the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, and an officer from the initial incident in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Joined by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and Calguns Foundation, Inc., Mrs. Rodriguez argued that the seizure and retention of her firearms violated her Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that she was entitled to the return of her firearms under state law. The plaintiffs additionally sought compensatory damages and “injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent future violations of Lori's rights and the rights of the organizations' members” (Rodriguez, p 1129). The district court rejected these arguments and granted summary judgment for the defendants. Mrs. Rodriguez appealed.

Ruling and Reasoning

The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the federal district court's summary judgment. Mrs. Rodriguez argued that interim developments such as reregistering of her firearms and the Department of Justice firearms clearance merited reconsideration of her Second Amendment claim. The Ninth Circuit found that her arguments had not materially changed. The state courts had already considered her ownership interest in the firearms and applicable state laws in their analysis. The Ninth Circuit barred reconsideration of Mrs. Rodriguez's Second Amendment claim. The organizational plaintiffs were found to lack standing to bring suit.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the California Court of Appeal that Mrs. Rodriguez was not prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms. Therefore, her Second Amendment right was not violated. The court affirmed that the Second Amendment does not extend to keeping and bearing particular firearms confiscated from an individual with mental illness. The Second Amendment does not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (Rodriguez, p 1132, citing McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, p 786 (2010)).

The Ninth Circuit considered Mrs. Rodriguez's argument that a warrantless seizure of her firearms violated the Fourth Amendment. There are limited exceptions to the search and seizure requirements under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S Supreme Court recognized “community caretaking function” as a necessary police activity for protection of public health and safety in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). The Ninth Circuit held that “(1) the public safety interest; (2) the urgency of that public interest; and (3) the individual property, liberty, and privacy interests […] must be balanced, based on all of the facts available to an objectively reasonable officer, when asking whether such a seizure of a firearm falls within an exception to the warrant requirement” (Rodriguez, p 1138). Two cases involving warrantless search and seizure of firearms for public safety purposes were referenced (Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2008) and Corrigan v. District of Columbia, 841 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).

The court found the seizure of Mrs. Rodriguez's firearms was appropriate given significant public safety interests despite her private interest in her personal property. The court made particular note of Mr. Rodriguez's concerning behavior and statements, including “shooting up schools” and reference to the firearms at home. The circumstances were deemed urgent and justified a warrantless seizure because Mr. Rodriguez, who was detained pursuant to WIC § 5150, could have been held up to 72 hours, but the hospital staff had discretion to prematurely release him. Mrs. Rodriguez argued she could mitigate the urgency by changing the combination key to the gun safe, but the court reasoned, “Edward … could have overpowered her to gain access to the guns” (Rodriguez, p 1140). She also argued a telephonic warrant could have been obtained prior to her husband's release but provided no evidence to support this claim.

The warrantless seizure of Mrs. Rodriguez's firearms did not impermissibly violate her Fourth Amendment right, with the caveat that such a ruling was “limited to the particular circumstances here” (Rodriguez, p 1140). The court also affirmed summary judgment on the Fifth and Fourteeenth Amendment and state law claims in a concurrent memorandum.