Federal Judge Rules Cops Can Take Over Your Home As They See Fit

http://www.truthandaction.org/police-state-federal-judge-rules-police-can-take-home-see-fit/ ^

[Okimi2200]

The Third Amendment was created to protect your home from being quartered by soldiers without your consent. It has very rarely been a matter of debate or litigation, until now.

Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon recently ruled that the police are exempt from the 3rd Amendment with a case out of Henderson, Nevada after a family had their home broken into and seized by local law enforcement who stated they needed the home to gain a “tactical advantage” against suspected criminals in a neighboring house.

Police actually forced their way into this family’s home, pepperballed the father and his dog and then incarcerated the man for a day.

[Secret Agent Man]

This court ruling must be disobeyed. It is null and void. It is repugnant to the Constitution and is un-Constitutional on its face. Therefore we all have a duty to reject it.

I don’t care what a rogue court says. They don’t get to over-run a person’s house for whatever reason they concoct to rationalize such color-of-law illegal behavior.

[Sola Veritas]

“Should have gone after the secure in person and papers or no search without warrant”

Sounds like they weren’t there to do a “search.” So, it wouldn’t apply. Also, right to be secure in persons and papers has been so watered down by courts over the years.

I am not a Libertarian. However, I despise “no knock” warrants. I DO NOT want to see law enforcement endangered. However, I am of the opinion that these warrants - while purported to be for police safety - are actually about seizing evidence before it can be destroyed. IF the real reason was police safety, then just cover all exits and tell to occupants to come out. Whatever, I am not an attorney nor a civil libertarian, but these type of no knock warrants just really seem to violate the original intent of the COTUS.

[faithhopecharity]

if they have a legitimate reason (hard to imagine, but perhaps there might be one?)
then they will be welcomed in with open arms, fed, watered, and assisted as much as possible

if they just try to crash the place without permission or a legitimate reason, they will not be let in

[null and void]

The relevant questions are thus whether municipal police should be considered soldiers

They look like soldiers, they act like soldiers, they're armed like soldiers...

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Hussein Obama, 7/2/2008

They don’t call it a Civil Defense force, that would imply we need (or perhaps that we deserve) defense. The official name is National Civilian Community Corps.

I think of it as the NatCCC, or more simply, as the NatCs...

[Sola Veritas]

Police should NEVER be allowed to act like an “occupying army” with the citizens as subjects of the occupation.

Law enforcement and military functions MUST be kept forever separate. Otherwise the law enforcer becomes - like I said - and occupation army.

[USNBandit]

I think this is actually a 4th Amendment issue. Even if the police are temporarily seizing your home, it is still different than the military quartering troops. The police will go for the exigent circumstance exception. The victim should challenge the Use of Force based upon the Graham v. Connor standard for use of force to be reasonable and necessary. Use of Force challenges are also based upon 4th Amendment case law, as the SCOTUS considers physical force against you to be a seizure of your physical well being

[muir_redwoods]

Come on my property without a warrant or an invitation and I don’t care what uniform you’re wearing. UPS and FedEx drivers excepted.

[jsanders2001]

If the officers would just ask they might get consent...just at hought.

[BenLurkin]

Sounds like they weren’t there to do a “search.” So, it wouldn’t apply.

I would argue to the contrary and here is why:

If the LEOs had busted in for the purpose of securing a "tactical advantage" and then spotted a pile of illegal drugs on the table -- these people would have been arrested. AND it would have been upheld as a legal "search"

If LEOs can invade your home for "tactical" reasons -- then they are being permitted to conduct a warrantless search.

This ruling expands existing "emergency' entries beyond the well being of persons n the property -- and into mere convenience for LE.

Just kinda shooting the breeze off the top of my head.

[Catsrus]

I agree. I see it as a 4th Amendment issue.

[ZOOKER]

For efficiency government officials should have a special "UTRRHT" key installed on their computers. Lots of labor can be saved by using this acronym in every law or court judgement. Who wants to waste time writing out "Unless They Really Really Have To" every time?

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed UTRRHT

People have a right to be safe and secure in their homes UTRRHT

[Reno89519]

In this case, they apparently did ask, were told no, then broke down the door, peppersprayed the homeowner, arrested and jailed them for a day, while occupying their home. Saying No should be respected. The police were wrong, risked getting shot had the homeowner been armed, and have wrongly jailed the homeowner. Incredible that a judge even remotely sides with the police. Maybe he went to law school with Obama or via mail order.

[upchuck]

Locked and loaded. Somebody say when.

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't agree. Fourth amendment protections are for stopping seizure of your property because YOU were a suspect in a crime; not because your neighbor is a suspect and your property is convenient to them.

If anything, it is an illegal Fifth Amendment takings. At the least, the family should bill the police department for premium renting of their home.

And they should still pursue Third Amendment quartering, as police are "agent of the state" as cited in the SCOTUS Griswold case I posted above.

-PJ

[GraceG]

Who knew a Judge could overturn the 3rd amendment or that we would even be considering a 3rd amendment issue ....

[GraceG]

[ If LEOs can invade your home for “tactical” reasons — then they are being permitted to conduct a warrantless search. ]

They were doing “tactical excersizes” in the area and based off a tip they could bust into ANYONE’s home....

[Reno89519]

Just spent a few minutes reading this OLD NEWS story. This happened in 2011, the charges that landed the homeowner in jail were dismissed a month or so after the event, the 3rd amendment was dismissed in 2014, the remained of the case seems to be dragging out (at least I do not see anything very recent). Of course, as one site reported: “None of the officers were fired, subjected to official discipline, or even inquiry.” The police are safe, even if citizens obviously are not. The Constitution, what Constitution?

[doorgunner69]

Always remember G Gordon Liddy’s advice: Head Shots!

[Hiddigeigei]

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” William Pitt

[Political Junkie Too]

Fourth amendment is for when YOU are a suspect in a crime and YOUR property is taken as evidence against you. They were not suspects; their property was just convenient to the police who strong armed their way into it.

-PJ