• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Interesting. If any of this truely happened the case going under the 3rd amendment won't go very far because police are considered as civilians, not solidiers.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From the article:

"In addition to Third and Fourth Amendment violations tied to the warrantless occupation of their homes, the Mitchells say the police are guilty of assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress."

While I suspect the Third Amendment charge will die a quick death, many of the other ones probably have some legs. Assuming the facts in the article are true, these cops were way, way out of line and the department owes this guy (and to a lesser extent his parents) some serious money.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,147
Reaction score
45,079
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Interesting. If any of this truely happened the case going under the 3rd amendment won't go very far because police are considered as civilians, not solidiers.
I'm pretty sure it happened. The complaint is on Scribd and even the WSJ has picked up the story.

Personally, I like the 3A angle on this. When the cops are armed with automatic weapons, tanks, etc. and kitted out better than some of our guys in Afghanistan I can certainly see how they would fit the definition of "soldier". If you figure that "militia" means able bodied adult males then it's not too big a stretch to bring cops under that umbrella especially when you consider what their role is.
 
Last edited:

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I would be curious to know if that would be the courts interpretation. I could argue a police officer, an agent of the state, and acting in official capacity equates a soldier in the 3rd since that amendment notes people don't have to house soldiers in peace time or war. Has that been ruled on?


Interesting. If any of this truely happened the case going under the 3rd amendment won't go very far because police are considered as civilians, not solidiers.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I try to never interact with the police here but when I do, I'm very, very humble. It doesn't take much to get them waling on you.


No kidding! It was Metro that took out Erik Scott a few years back.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would be curious to know if that would be the courts interpretation. I could argue a police officer, an agent of the state, and acting in official capacity equates a soldier in the 3rd since that amendment notes people don't have to house soldiers in peace time or war. Has that been ruled on?
There's basically no caselaw on the Third Amendment. It's so infrequently cited that it doesn't even have an entry in the index of my law school conlaw textbook (I just checked). I would think that the primary barrier to a Third Amendment charge in this case is not whether or not cops constitute soldiers for the purpose of the amendment, but whether or not they were quartered. The amendment is most likely meant to protect against people being required to either pay for soldiers to be housed, or to house soldiers themselves. It was a reaction to Colonists being required to provide room and board (or payment for same) for British troops. In this case, the cops weren't forcibly living in the house, they just broke in and took over for what I assume is an hour or two (and inexplicably assaulted the resident of one). While that's almost certainly illegal as hell and highly actionable under the several causes of action listed in the article, I don't think it's a violation of the Third Amendment.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,147
Reaction score
45,079
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I try to never interact with the police here but when I do, I'm very, very humble. It doesn't take much to get them waling on you.
I lived there a few years back ('93-'96) and never had any problems but I understand things have changed.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,147
Reaction score
45,079
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There's basically no caselaw on the Third Amendment. It's so infrequently cited that it doesn't even have an entry in the index of my law school conlaw textbook (I just checked). I would think that the primary barrier to a Third Amendment charge in this case is not whether or not cops constitute soldiers for the purpose of the amendment, but whether or not they were quartered. The amendment is most likely meant to protect against people being required to either pay for soldiers to be housed, or to house soldiers themselves. It was a reaction to Colonists being required to provide room and board (or payment for same) for British troops. In this case, the cops weren't forcibly living in the house, they just broke in and took over for what I assume is an hour or two (and inexplicably assaulted the resident of one). While that's almost certainly illegal as hell and highly actionable under the several causes of action listed in the article, I don't think it's a violation of the Third Amendment.
You attorneys just thrive on crushing the dreams of the rest of us, don't you?:lol:
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You attorneys just thrive on crushing the dreams of the rest of us, don't you?:lol:
It's one of the perils of the job. If I'm having a good day at work, that almost invariably means that someone else either has had, or is about to have, a very bad day. :)
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,118
Reaction score
21,590
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They should win the lawsuit, although not in the 3rd.

The same is that the officer who shot the homeowner repeatedly was not arrested and charged with criminal assault.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,138
Reaction score
32,845
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
no third amendment violation there
but a bunch of other police actions should not have transpired
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,240
Reaction score
4,865
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment

Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment - Hit & Run : Reason.com
I think the 3rd amendment charge will be hard to prove, since it's ambiguous whether police count as soldiers, and whether taking over the guy's house for a couple hours really constitutes quartering.

The other charges are a lot more clear-cut, though it will likely still be hard for him to get any justice for it, since cops routinely get away with stuff like this with no punishment at all.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,511
Reaction score
16,300
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment

Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I do not think the 3rd amendment argument applies here.Police are not soldiers and I am not sure using a home as a staging area for a few hours constitutes as housing police officers. Police definitely should not be allowed to use someone's home as a staging area without the owner/renter's consent. Seeing how police need a warrant to search a home then they most definitely should not be able to enter any home at all without the owner/renter's consent.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The 3rd Amendment has always been my favorite amendment. It's also the most powerful. Name one politician who doesn't support it FULLY? :2razz:
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I see the Third Amendment as being tied in with the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's home, and the Fifth Amendment right not to have private property taken for public use without just compensation. The action taken here by these corrupt police violates all three of these Amendments, at the point where all three overlap. They took over and occupied his home without his consent, they violated the security of his home without a warrant, and they took private property (albeit temporarily) for public use, without just compensation. I'm not swayed in the least by any argument that these corrupt police are not “soldiers” with regard to the meaning of the Third Amendment, nor that their temporary occupation of a home didn't constitute “quartering”. I think these are semantic arguments that have little to do with the abuses that the Third Amendment was intended to prohibit, and which clearly occurred in this instance.

Keep in mind that the founders, in general, had a strong antipathy toward the idea of a standing army, and in their mind, “soldiers” could just as easily be members of a civilian militia as they could be members of a formal, government-employed, standing army. Police officers would be more similar to formal “soldiers” than would the militia members to whom the Third Amendment was as well surely intended to apply.

And the security of a citizen's home would certainly be just as violated by militia members or police officers occupying it against the owner's wishes, as it would be by formal soldiers.

This was an entirely illegal act on the part of the police; and it should have been obvious to anyone who has enough of a grasp of Constitutional principles to be qualified to be a police officer that this action could not possibly be legal.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The 3rd Amendment has always been my favorite amendment. It's also the most powerful. Name one politician who doesn't support it FULLY? :2razz:
I'd like to see someone run on a "members of the public should be forced to have soldiers as roommates" platform. I can't see that working very well.
 
Top Bottom