Posted on 04/17/2015 7:22:10 AM PDT by Altariel
The Third Amendment, which guards against the quartering of soldiers in citizens’ homes – and which came into being because of the abuse of British troops against American patriots – has just been dinged by a judge who ruled the provision doesn’t apply to police.
In essence, that means police on official business could claim the legal right to bust into a private citizen’s home and occupy it.
The determination from federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon was rendered when he dismissed a Third Amendment claim from a Henderson, Nevada, family who suffered that very fate.
Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson and several police agents in federal court for a July 2011 incident they described in court papers.
Volokh reported: “On the morning of July 10, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence. … [Police] told [Mitchell] police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I don’t think the founding fathers envisioned a police state.
I don’t think they enivsioned a citizenry that would allow, and indeed, embrace, a Police State.
There were no such thing as an organized police force when the Constitution was written. The closest analogy was troops sent in to keep order.
Prepositioning of military equipment for use by the military, either the formal military or by the Civilian Defense Force that is in operation now, when the time comes to use it.
Prepositioning of military equipment for use by the military, either the formal military or by the Civilian Defense Force that is in operation now, when the time comes to use it.
Let's see the demographics of the neighborhood.
They envisioned it and tried to prevent it with the Constitution.
Surely a group like Judicial Watch won’t let this decision just sit as is.
To the contrary, that is exactly what they envisioned a government would always naturally evolve into if not neutered.
So this court is ruling that the purpose of the invasion is the difference between having to get a warrant to enter and just busting in and taking over??
If the cops want to arrest someone they must get a warrant.
If they just want to use your property they can just bust in.
Is it time yet?
The Fourth Amendment should prohibit such police actions.
I agree. Attempting to cite the Third Amendment in a case like this is just legal acrobatics and a waste of everyone's time.
I wonder what the judge will think about evidence found during the warrant-less entry to the premises.
Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner . . .
The distinction between police and soldiers might be used to argue that the police were allowed to enter his home against his will, but the police were "quartered" in his home, since the word means "to be stationed or lodged in a specified place".
The Fourth Amendment is also marginal:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .
The police presence was not for the purpose of a search or a seizure. They could argue that there is no protection against unwelcome intrusion if it is not for the purpose of a search or a seizure. I would have permitted the police to enter my home for a reasonable purpose, but they need permission. They have no authority to demand entry without a warrant.
An argument could be made that they were. An even stronger argument could be made that police ARE "troops" under a historical understanding of the Third Amendment.
In colonial times, the King's troops were involved in "law enforcement", in that they enforced the King's orders upon the populace. There were no "police" forces as we term them in modern times, there were just the King's troops.
As far as "quartering", there have been cases where police took over a residence for more than a day, in order to surveil a location. In that case, it's beyond question that they were "quartering" there under the understanding of the Third Amendment.
In the case in the article, even if the occupation was for just a few hours, then at the least it was a "taking" without compensation.
“There were no such thing as an organized police force when the Constitution was written. The closest analogy was troops sent in to keep order.”
I would steer clear of that line of argument. If it is successful then the libs can say: “There was no such thing as semi automatic breach loading rifles (or whatever) when the constitution was written. The closest analogy was the Brown Bess or Kentucky Long Rifle used to protect the home.”
Modern police forces are militarized units is a better argument.
Police forces openly acknowledge themselves as “paramilitary.”
They have a military organization, including military ranks, chain of command organization style, and other identifiers including military uniforms.
When does “paramilitary” cross the “military” definition line.
Or, have “paramilitary” police already crossed that line.
Looking back at US history, police have already crossed that line.
Yup, that seems to be his attitude: a search needs a warrant, but the cops can just come into your house and use it as a command center or sniper nest whenever they feel like it.
Maybe on appeal some judge can find some of those “penumbrae emanating from” bits of the Constitution and rule that the Third and Fourth Amendments taken together prevent this kind of thing, but I’m not hopeful.
In answer to your last question, let’s see how this goes on appeal and how the 2016 election goes.
From Wikipedia Third Amendment to the United States Constitution :
The Third Amendment has been invoked in a few instances as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Justice William O. Douglas used the amendment along with others in the Bill of Rights as a partial basis for the majority decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which cited the Third Amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.