I'm surprised this didn't make the list: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 20–157 EDWARD A. CANIGLIA, PETITIONER v. ROBERT F. STROM, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT [May 17, 2021] JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “public highways”are often called to discharge noncriminal “community care-taking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehiclesor investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking”duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrant-less searches and seizures in the home. It does not.

I'm surprised this didn't make the list: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 20–157 EDWARD A. CANIGLIA, PETITIONER v. ROBERT F. STROM, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT [May 17, 2021] JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “public highways”are often called to discharge noncriminal “community care-taking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehiclesor investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking”duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrant-less searches and seizures in the home.** It does not.**