Whether a 'special-needs exception' allows warrantless entry into a home

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has long held that, without “consent” or “exigent circumstances,” warrantless “entry into a home” is “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 211 (1981). It has further explained that the contours of “exigent circumstances” and “any other warrant exception permitting home entry are jealously and carefully drawn.” Lange v. California, 141 8. Ct. 2011, 2018 (2021) (cleaned up). Accordingly, the Court has “repeatedly” declined to expand the scope of any exceptions to the warrant requirement for home entry. Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1600 (2021). Despite this Court’s guidance, the Second Circuit, without relying “on any other Fourth Amendment exception,” Pet. App. 26a n.25, held that a “specialneeds exception” to the warrant requirement allows the government to enter a home to seize the firearms of a person suspected of no crime and who is not subject to penal control or supervision. And that court granted qualified immunity to non-police state officials who, after finding that Petitioner presented no risk to himself or others, continued to confine him in a mental hospital until his firearms were seized. The questions presented are: (1) Whether a so-called “special-needs exception” to the Fourth Amendment exists and allows warrantless entry into the home of someone who is not subject to penal control or supervision. (2) Whether the Court should overrule the judgemade qualified immunity doctrine as to non-police state actors.