Judge rules Third Amendment does not apply to cops.

[phill4paul]

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.”

Police went to the Mitchell family house anyway, and “banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence,” his complaint read.

Mitchell then reportedly contacted his mother to let her know what was going on – and police “smashed open” his door with a metal ram, court documents indicated.

From there, the situation grew even more chaotic. Mitchell wrote in court papers police pepperballed him and his dog, gave him conflicting orders and ultimately arrested him. He was released the next day from jail.

But Mitchell and his parents turned around and sued, alleging their Third and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated – the Third, because the police were acting like members of the military. The case was closely watched by legal minds, given the unusual nature of the Third Amendment alleged violation.

But Gordon dismissed that claim in a court action that fell largely under the nation’s radar.

He wrote, the Washington Post reported: “Various officers … entered into and occupied Linda’s and Michael’s home for an unspecified amount of time (seemingly nine hours), but certainly for less than 24 hours. The relevant questions are thus whether municipal police should be considered soldiers, and whether the time they spent in the house could be considered quartering. To both questions, the answer must be no. I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/cops-can-storm-homes-court-suggests/#xkWvsh9J2raFUBr7.99

[jmdrake]

They've desecrated the rest of the bill of rights and conservatives haven't given a rip about anything but the 2nd. Why should the 3rd be special?
/sarasm

On a serious note, there are all sorts of violations of the spirit of this amendment. We're conditioned to this in the movies where the hero cop flashes his/her badge as says "I need to commandeer this car." (Hmmmm....I wonder if any straight up car thieves have ever tried this?) Or what about when the NSA insisted years ago, documented long before the Snowden leaks, that telephone companies must let them install NSA servers on their hubs?

[Ronin Truth]

Hmmm, profession over rules citizenship, who knew? :p

Where'd this judge go to school?

Where'd the guy who made him a judge go to school? :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

Hooray!

I was wondering when the last hold out, the third, would be declared null and void.

Now we can finally dispense with that silly Bill of Rights.

Not soldiers:

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/Album%202/copswithtank_zps175fde72.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Clowns in Gowns.


Hmmm, profession over rules citizenship, who knew? :p

Where'd this judge go to school?

Where'd the guy who made him a judge go to school? :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

Not soldiers:

http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AP969996949662-640x360.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Insignificant tax on tea? Our ancestors violently rebelled.

Cops violently barge into your home and take it over for as long as they want? Just another day in the Empire.

[Ronin Truth]

Insignificant tax on tea? Our ancestors violently rebelled.

Cops violently barge into your home and take it over for as long as they want? Just another day in the Empire.

"Our forefathers would be firing by now."

[mrsat_98]

Hooray!

I was wondering when the last hold out, the third, would be declared null and void.

Now we can finally dispense with that silly Bill of Rights.

Not soldiers:

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/Album%202/copswithtank_zps175fde72.jpg

and "this State" is not a military reservation, War on Drugs is not a war, amended trading with the enemy act was not treason.

[Anti Federalist]

"Our forefathers would be firing by now."

We're so far removed from what those people were, we may as well be a different species.

[Ronin Truth]

We're so far removed from what those people were, we may as well be a different species.

But they didn't have TV or cellphones, etc.. :D

[Cissy]

Wonder what King George would say if he could see us today?

[presence]

FROM

MY

COLD

DEAD

HANDS

[Weston White]

So how did this case turn out, what about false arrest, excessive force, unlawful entry into private dwelling without warrant, etc?

Personally, I don't think the Third Amendment is really applicable to police (state agents) either, but that does not mean police possess carte blanche to do as they wish.

Although do I wonder if one could argue that police have been coopted at the federal level through massive, continuing, financial grants and awarded military suplus equipment and to participate in federally declared wars and acts of law, such as the war on drugs, education, and gun control, and are therefore now qualified soldiers?

[Ronin Truth]

Wonder what King George would say if he could see us today?

"BLOODY COLONISTS! The peasants are revolting!"

[Spikender]

Insignificant tax on tea? Our ancestors violently rebelled.

Cops violently barge into your home and take it over for as long as they want? Just another day in the Empire.

I'm glad to see this line coming out of you, Anti-Fed.

I've said this ever since Ron Paul woke me up to liberty. One of my very first thoughts was: "If there is all this absolute corruption, people being abused and shot by the police, people being murdered by executive order, the selling of our children into slavery, and mountains of other things... how has there not been a revolution when our Founders revolted over practically nothing by comparison?"

Seems so crazy to me that people have been so conditioned, but that's always been part of the plan I suppose.

[donnay]

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
~ James Madison

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army”
~ Thomas Jefferson

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
~ Noah Webster

[Ronin Truth]

As the Romans eventually learned, "bread and circuses", works great to keep the mobs anesthetized.

Now about those year round US sports obsessions. ;)

[presence]

Personally, I don't think the Third Amendment is really applicable to police (state agents) either

Why?

Is it the federal funding? The tanks? The military swat gear and fully automatic weapons? Is the the circular force continuum training? Is it the sharing of information with the federal agencies like ICE BATF NSA via Fusion Centers?

How fucking jack booted do the local cops have to become before IT DOESN"T FUCKING MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THEM.

Its what they do.



People have totally lost sight of what the third amendment was about.

After the Quartering Acts were passed, a soldier could demand to say in barns, uninhabited houses, or in places like stables, bars, and inns. Even the British didn't have the gall to claim possession of personal primary residences.






Engblom v. Carey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey) (1982).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circ uit) ruled:

(1) that the term owner in the Third Amendment includes tenants (paralleling similar cases regarding the Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ), governing search and seizure),
(2) National Guard troops count as soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment, and
(3) that the Third Amendment is incorporated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) (that is, that it applies to the states) by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-22)

[thoughtomator]

It took them a while, but they finally found a way to eviscerate the only remaining intact Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's a full sweep, folks.

[mrsat_98]

deleted

[mrsat_98]

https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10734092_10204131554190020_3820466294941378483_n.j pg?oh=6a9e88aceb1183ade3292513493563e6&oe=55A9DDFE

[echo1]

USA! USA! USA!

[CaptUSA]

Was the case dismissed with or without prejudice? If it was without, I would immediately bring it again. If it was dismissed with prejudice (which seems unlikely) then I'd immediately bring it to a Federal court.

[Brian4Liberty]

When was the last time a Judge actually ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights?

[GunnyFreedom]

Was the case dismissed with or without prejudice? If it was without, I would immediately bring it again. If it was dismissed with prejudice (which seems unlikely) then I'd immediately bring it to a Federal court.

If it's a Third Amendment argument, then it should have started in a Federal Court.

[Weston White]

It was heard in the federal circuit and appears to entirely favor the police's inappropriate actions, without prejudice:


III. CONCLUSION

In accord with the foregoing, I hereby ORDER:

1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. All official-capacity claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed.

3. All claims against Chief Chambers are dismissed without prejudice.

4. All claims against Chief Chronister are dismissed without prejudice.

5. All claims against HPD Officers Poiner, Feola, and Walls are dismissed without prejudice.

6. Qualified immunity is denied as to all named individual defendants.

7. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed without prejudice as to the individual police officers.

8. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed with prejudice as to Assistant City Attorney Reyes-Speer.

9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

10. The Eleventh Claim for Relief (§ 1985(3)) is dismissed without prejudice.

11. The Twelfth Claim for Relief (§ 1986) is dismissed without prejudice.

12. The Seventeenth Claim for Relief (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed without prejudice.

13. The Nineteenth Claim for Relief (abuse of process) is dismissed without prejudice.

14. The Twenty-First Claim for Relief (respondeat superior) is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Plaintiffs may assert respondeat superior as a theory of liability at the proper time and upon the proper factual basis.

15. The claims for punitive damages against the City of Henderson and the City of Las Vegas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice.

16. The claims for punitive damages for the state law claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

[GunnyFreedom]

It was heard in the federal circuit and appears to entirely favor the police's inappropriate actions, without prejudice:


9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

:rolleyes: ^%$# $#@# @#$% $$#@ #@#$

[Weston White]

Here is more on the Intolerance Act or Quartering Acts which were directly reflected within both the Second and Third Amendments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Acts

And just to note a few other points:


The state militias would certainly fall under the confines of the Third Amendment.
The court noted that quartering is not applicable, regardless, if the duration is less than 24-hours; however, the context of quartering, is the requirement to provide quarters, including food, personal property, etc., nothing about a duration is stated therein.
It is the police themselves that consider themselves as being para-military, referring to citizens as civilians, and that award themselves regalia and other shiny baubles, along with militant titles.
Regarding the Quartering Acts, British soldiers served the King in the capacity as local law enforcement personnel throughout the colonies--modern federal, state, municipal, and county law enforcement agencies are a more recent concept.



Original case from 2013: http://www.scribd.com/doc/151769636/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et-al-Complaint

[fisharmor]

When was the last time a Judge actually ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights?

The only reason at all to have judges say anything about the Bill of Rights, is to have them find ways around them.

Despite all appearances, individual people aren't stupid. They can read and comprehend one-sentence thoughts.
You only need a judge when you want to generate reams of text that show how that one sentence means the exact opposite of what it actually says.

[TheTexan]

This seems like something we should have at least voted on.

[qh4dotcom]

They've desecrated the rest of the bill of rights and conservatives haven't given a rip about anything but the 2nd. Why should the 3rd be special?


The third amendment is a joke and unnecessary because any violations of the third amendment are automatic violations of the fourth amendment.

[Anti Federalist]

This seems like something we should have at least voted on.

Silence, mundane.

Obey Harder.

That's all you need to know.

[Anti Federalist]

The third amendment is a joke and unnecessary because any violations of the third amendment are automatic violations of the fourth amendment.

Good thinking comrade.

And since there is no longer any such thing as the fourth amendment, we're good to go, amirite?

[phill4paul]

The only violation to any amendment in the Bill of Rights is that the people choose to treat them with irreverence. That is what the founders would truly weep over. Not what the government has become, but, rather what the people have allowed the government to become.

[euphemia]

So a Constitutional amendment intended to limit government doesn't so much?

[Anti Federalist]

So a Constitutional amendment intended to limit government doesn't so much?

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner

[jmdrake]

The third amendment is a joke and unnecessary because any violations of the third amendment are automatic violations of the fourth amendment.

Well technically someone can quarter in your house without searching it.

[KCIndy]

III. CONCLUSION

In accord with the foregoing, I hereby ORDER:

1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. All official-capacity claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed.

3. All claims against Chief Chambers are dismissed without prejudice.

4. All claims against Chief Chronister are dismissed without prejudice.

5. All claims against HPD Officers Poiner, Feola, and Walls are dismissed without prejudice.

6. Qualified immunity is denied as to all named individual defendants.

7. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed without prejudice as to the individual police officers.

8. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed with prejudice as to Assistant City Attorney Reyes-Speer.

9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

10. The Eleventh Claim for Relief (§ 1985(3)) is dismissed without prejudice.

11. The Twelfth Claim for Relief (§ 1986) is dismissed without prejudice.

12. The Seventeenth Claim for Relief (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed without prejudice.

13. The Nineteenth Claim for Relief (abuse of process) is dismissed without prejudice.

14. The Twenty-First Claim for Relief (respondeat superior) is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Plaintiffs may assert respondeat superior as a theory of liability at the proper time and upon the proper factual basis.

15. The claims for punitive damages against the City of Henderson and the City of Las Vegas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice.

16. The claims for punitive damages for the state law claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice.


What an unbelievable train wreck of a decision. I feel sick. :(

[Origanalist]

The only violation to any amendment in the Bill of Rights is that the people choose to treat them with irreverence. That is what the founders would truly weep over. Not what the government has become, but, rather what the people have allowed the government to become.

George Washington would strongly disapprove....

[Stratovarious]

Ubelieveable tyranny, they no longer even bother hiding it.

, ,

[Christopher A. Brown]

The only violation to any amendment in the Bill of Rights is that the people choose to treat them with irreverence. That is what the founders would truly weep over. Not what the government has become, but, rather what the people have allowed the government to become.

Is this similar to you not accepting that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate amongst the people to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[Stratovarious]

The only violation to any amendment in the Bill of Rights is that the people choose to treat them with irreverence. That is what the founders would truly weep over. Not what the government has become, but, rather what the people have allowed the government to become.

"vote harder" ?

, ,

[Christian Liberty]

Cops aren't soldiers? They sure look like it to me.

[PaleoPaul]

I'm kinda in favor of this ruling. If the judge would have ruled that the 3rd amendment DID apply to cops, wouldn't that FURTHER enable and empower them to have a militaristic attitude?

[Anti Federalist]

I'm kinda in favor of this ruling. If the judge would have ruled that the 3rd amendment DID apply to cops, wouldn't that FURTHER enable and empower them to have a militaristic attitude?

I don't see how.

[Intoxiklown]

I love to read the discussions, as I truly enjoy the intellects here (hence my low post count). However, sometimes you folks over complicate things. I don't care what some idiot wearing a black dress said, if someone comes into your house, you shoot them. You want to talk about decisions with prejudice....

[Stratovarious]

This judge like the one that turned into Dr Joyce Brothers, needs to pull his head out of his ###.

No matter what amendment or precedent he sites:
No man in this Country has the right to come into your home and take it over, at least the
4th amendment makes this plain and simple:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

, ,

[Stratovarious]

Judge Andrew Gordon Fed Dist Judge (702) 868-4940

, ,

[PaleoPaul]

I don't see how.
The 3rd Amendment applies to soldiers. If you say that the 3rd applies to cops, doesn't that technically make them soldiers under the eyes of the law? Our cops were never meant to be militaristic in any sense.

[Slave Mentality]

The 3rd Amendment applies to soldiers. If you say that the 3rd applies to cops, doesn't that technically make them soldiers under the eyes of the law? Our cops were never meant to be militaristic in any sense.

They were never meant to exist at all, but have become soldiers. Look at them. Look at what they do.

[Christopher A. Brown]

It was heard in the federal circuit and appears to entirely favor the police's inappropriate actions, without prejudice:


III. CONCLUSION

In accord with the foregoing, I hereby ORDER:

1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. All official-capacity claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed.

3. All claims against Chief Chambers are dismissed without prejudice.

4. All claims against Chief Chronister are dismissed without prejudice.

5. All claims against HPD Officers Poiner, Feola, and Walls are dismissed without prejudice.

6. Qualified immunity is denied as to all named individual defendants.

7. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed without prejudice as to the individual police officers.

8. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed with prejudice as to Assistant City Attorney Reyes-Speer.

9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

10. The Eleventh Claim for Relief (§ 1985(3)) is dismissed without prejudice.

11. The Twelfth Claim for Relief (§ 1986) is dismissed without prejudice.

12. The Seventeenth Claim for Relief (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed without prejudice.

13. The Nineteenth Claim for Relief (abuse of process) is dismissed without prejudice.

14. The Twenty-First Claim for Relief (respondeat superior) is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Plaintiffs may assert respondeat superior as a theory of liability at the proper time and upon the proper factual basis.

15. The claims for punitive damages against the City of Henderson and the City of Las Vegas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice.

16. The claims for punitive damages for the state law claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

I understand the decision. I don't like it, but for other reasons. Suppose that instead of domestic violence, which the occupants might have had an attitude about, being next door and all; and based their decision on that rather than the cops procedural latitude. Suppose that instead of domestic violence it was armed bank robbers in a running shoutout with the cops.

The cops don't care, I mean they shoot kids with toy guns. It's all an excuse to man up and get violent. That's their behavioral problem that we will need a lawful and peaceful revolution to change.

If it had been a bunch of bank robbers, the neighbors would have f'nn ran out of their house. If they were smart they would go to an expensive hotel, order an expensive dinner, wake up in the morning. Survey the damage at home, total up the cost of relating to the damage done, adding in the hotel bills etc. and send it to the city attorney with a demand to pay.

If they don't pay, sue them for the cost of accommodating the law enforcement action. When lives are in danger, LE is empowered to do a lot. If your home happens to be turned into part of the battle ground, that's just bad luck. Make the best of it.

The real problem in this case is there is no effective mental health care to deal with family conflicts. This is a major point of negligence that has led to the entire escalation of LE attitude and response.

The only way to deal with that deficiency is a lawful and peaceful revolution altering or abolishing government destructive to our unalienable rights.

[Anti Federalist]

The 3rd Amendment applies to soldiers. If you say that the 3rd applies to cops, doesn't that technically make them soldiers under the eyes of the law? Our cops were never meant to be militaristic in any sense.

For all intents and purposes they are soldiers.

[Feeding the Abscess]

They've desecrated the rest of the bill of rights and conservatives haven't given a rip about anything but the 2nd. Why should the 3rd be special?
/sarasm

On a serious note, there are all sorts of violations of the spirit of this amendment. We're conditioned to this in the movies where the hero cop flashes his/her badge as says "I need to commandeer this car." (Hmmmm....I wonder if any straight up car thieves have ever tried this?) Or what about when the NSA insisted years ago, documented long before the Snowden leaks, that telephone companies must let them install NSA servers on their hubs?

That's actually a tactic that has been used before:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8VfWbsFJXQ

[Anti Federalist]

Bump

Thanks to specsaregood for calling me on this.