CA9: Seizure of 12 firearms from the home during a mental health crisis and then delaying return was reasonable under community caretaking function

Plaintiff called the police on her husband because of a mental health crisis, and the police seized 12 firearms from the home. She petitioned for return on the firearms, and the Superior Court denied relief and she appealed, and it was affirmed. She sued in federal court for the guns with Second and Fourth Amendment claims. Issue preclusion on the question of return of the guns wasn’t pled but it was applied in the interest of judicial economy. On the Fourth Amendment claim, exigency and the community caretaking function applied. The police had no idea when he would be released from the mental ward. Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21897 (9th Cir. July 23, 2019):

Applying the same analytical framework, we hold that the warrantless seizure of the Rodriguezes’ guns was appropriate. The seizure of the firearms did affect a serious private interest in personal property kept in the home. On the other hand, the public interest at stake here was also very significant. San Jose police officers had previously been to the home on prior occasions because Edward was acting erratically, and on the day in question, Edward was ranting about the CIA, the army, and other people watching him. He also mentioned “[s]hooting up schools,” specifically referencing the guns in the safe. Edward’s threats may not have been as explicit as the threats made in Mora, but a reasonable officer would have been deeply concerned by the prospect that Edward might have had access to a firearm in the near future. Consequently, there was a substantial public safety interest in ensuring that the guns would not be available to Edward should he return from the hospital.

With significant private and public interests present on both sides, the urgency of the public safety interest is the key consideration in deciding whether the seizure here was reasonable. We believe that, on this record, the urgency of the situation justified the seizure of the firearms.

Importantly, the officers had no idea when Edward might return from the hospital. Even though California Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150 authorized the detention of Edward for a period of up to 72 hours for treatment and evaluation, he could only be held for that period if the hospital staff actually admitted him. See id. §§ 5150 (2013), 5151 (2013). As Lori conceded at oral argument, as far as the officers knew, Edward could have returned to the home at any time—making it uncertain that a warrant could have been obtained quickly enough to prevent the firearms from presenting a serious threat to public safety.

. . .

Our holding that the warrantless seizure of the guns did not violate the Fourth Amendment is limited to the particular circumstances here: the officers had probable cause to detain involuntarily an individual experiencing an acute mental health episode and to send the individual for evaluation, they expected the individual would have access to firearms and present a serious public safety threat if he returned to the home, and they did not know how quickly the individual might return. Under these circumstances, the urgency of a significant public safety interest was sufficient to outweigh the significant privacy interest in personal property kept in the home, and a warrant was not required.