Let's see the demographics of the neighborhood.
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.
You are quite right. Quartering means they move in and live there. Not the situation.
The rules are of necessity different when the cops are engaged in an active or potential firefight. What, they’re supposed to get a warrant and stand out on the porch reading it to the occupants while under fire?
Just because you are a chicken chit doesn’t mean everyone would automatically abandon their home because of an incident next door. I wouldn’t. I’m armed and dangerous. A domestic going on next door is not going to necessarily make me leave my house. And its not an excuse for the cops or anybody else to either make me leave or confiscate my home so they can use it as an observation post.
Even if I do leave my home that does not mean the cops can go in without my permission and occupy my property.
The 4th Ammendment is the 4th Ammendment. No warrant no admittsnce. End of story.