Supreme Court declines to broaden police power in warrantless searches of homes

Background: The case stems from a Rhode Island man's lawsuit against police for entering his home and seizing his guns without a warrant. His wife, who was not at their house, had been worried he might harm himself and asked the police to conduct a wellness check on her husband.

• A lower court had ruled the search had been covered by the Fourth Amendment's community caretaking clause.

What they're saying: "What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes," Thomas wrote for the court.

• "[T]his recognition that police officers perform many civic tasks in modern society was just that — a recognition that these tasks exist, and not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere."

The bottom line: "The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a person’s home is their castle," Daniel Woislaw, a lawyer at a libertarian litigation firm that filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a statement per The Hill.