3rd Amendment being ignored as well

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

LAS VEGAS (CN) - Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court.
Henderson, pop. 257,000, is a suburb of Las Vegas.
The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.
"On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.
It continues: "At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that 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. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use." (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)
The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states.
It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
"Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
"As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
"Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
"Addressing plaintiff as 'asshole', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.
"Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.
 
I used to joke about Third Amendment protections, because I never imagined a case actually arising over it. Once again, reality is stanger and less believable than fiction.
 
maybe I can take all the non responses to this as simple acceptance and submission that most people would rather not have a constitution anymore, preferring instead to do whatever the government tells them to do.
 
Or maybe we just said "yeah, if the story as posted is reported accurately, sounds like the police screwed up" and continued on our day rather than posting. Or maybe that was just me.
 
Or maybe we just said "yeah, if the story as posted is reported accurately, sounds like the police screwed up" and continued on our day rather than posting. Or maybe that was just me.

That's a tad more than a 'screw up'. A screw up is entering the wrong information into a computer. This was WILLFUL.
 
Does anyone think that this bogus "arrest" will result in conviction?

Does anyone think that the overreach of that law enforcement personnel won't leave the Department open to a huge lawsuit?

Checks and balances work.

Believe me, I am not defending the perpetrators of this injustice. It was complete bullshit. If the police came to my house and ASKED if they could set something like that up, and I felt that my neighbor's life was in danger....I would possibly....even probably do it.

But if they came in demanding to do so and threatenend me with arrest if I did not comply....I'd tell them to go scratch their asses.
 
Or maybe we just said "yeah, if the story as posted is reported accurately, sounds like the police screwed up" and continued on our day rather than posting. Or maybe that was just me.
screwed up? they planned in advance exactly what they were going to do and then threatened the occupants with deadly force for non compliance. I hardly consider that a screwup.
 
Does anyone think that this bogus "arrest" will result in conviction?

Does anyone think that the overreach of that law enforcement personnel won't leave the Department open to a huge lawsuit?

Checks and balances work.

Believe me, I am not defending the perpetrators of this injustice. It was complete bullshit. If the police came to my house and ASKED if they could set something like that up, and I felt that my neighbor's life was in danger....I would possibly....even probably do it.

But if they came in demanding to do so and threatenend me with arrest if I did not comply....I'd tell them to go scratch their asses.
you did read the article, right? especially the part about pointing assault rifles at the occupant of the first house? endangering the lives of the other occupants? you did read that, right? do you think they would just slink away with their tails between their legs in your case?
 
I don't even think most people know what the 3A says.

MOST people don't know what the first or second says much less the third.

One could also argue that it is an illegal seizure, in case, the state argues the 3rd only applies to soldiers.

It's too bad they did not use a different word, but the framers would have been surprised by our large number of police and may have viewed them as soldiers. It's also obvious that the third was, specifically, about using soldiers for policing which was a major grievance against the King.
 
Does anyone think that this bogus "arrest" will result in conviction?

Does anyone think that the overreach of that law enforcement personnel won't leave the Department open to a huge lawsuit?

Checks and balances work.

Believe me, I am not defending the perpetrators of this injustice. It was complete bullshit. If the police came to my house and ASKED if they could set something like that up, and I felt that my neighbor's life was in danger....I would possibly....even probably do it.

But if they came in demanding to do so and threatenend me with arrest if I did not comply....I'd tell them to go scratch their asses.

And then you'd go to jail, probably after 'resisting' arrest.
 
screwed up? they planned in advance exactly what they were going to do and then threatened the occupants with deadly force for non compliance. I hardly consider that a screwup.

She's obviously saying they acted improperly. Take the burr out of your ass and learn to accept when someone notes their agreement with you. There won't be many people defending the police on this. Maybe, Grind, since he seemed to think what they did in Boston was fine and dandy.
 
She's obviously saying they acted improperly. Take the burr out of your ass and learn to accept when someone notes their agreement with you. There won't be many people defending the police on this. Maybe, Grind, since he seemed to think what they did in Boston was fine and dandy.
lots of people here agreed with what they did in Boston, not just grind.
 
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

LAS VEGAS (CN) - Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court.
Henderson, pop. 257,000, is a suburb of Las Vegas.
The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.
"On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.
It continues: "At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that 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. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use." (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)
The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states.
It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
"Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
"As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
"Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
"Addressing plaintiff as 'asshole', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.
"Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.

While I find what the police did offensive and obviously an abuse of power, does the 3rd Amendment apply here since they aren't considered soldiers per se? I guess one could argue that the police are increasingly using military tactics, but I wonder what the courts would say.
 
She's obviously saying they acted improperly. Take the burr out of your ass and learn to accept when someone notes their agreement with you. There won't be many people defending the police on this. Maybe, Grind, since he seemed to think what they did in Boston was fine and dandy.

Thanks, Prof. Didn't seem worth getting into a battle over a word or two.
 
She's obviously saying they acted improperly. Take the burr out of your ass and learn to accept when someone notes their agreement with you. There won't be many people defending the police on this. Maybe, Grind, since he seemed to think what they did in Boston was fine and dandy.

i did not think those instances were fine and dandy. To the extent that there is evidence that they were bursting into houses I am 100% against that. My contention was it wasn't a wide spread thing. In fact I have seen videos online where it was simply a few knocks in watertown, them asking if the occupants had seen anything suspicious, and then they moved on their way.
 
i did not think those instances were fine and dandy. To the extent that there is evidence that they were bursting into houses I am 100% against that. My contention was it wasn't a wide spread thing. In fact I have seen videos online where it was simply a few knocks in watertown, them asking if the occupants had seen anything suspicious, and then they moved on their way.

And I have seen video where they cleared houses sending the inhabitants running into the streets with their hands up. If anyone had resisted I am sure it would have gotten a lot worse, but Bostonians have had the Red Sox teaching them how to fold for years.

 
Back
Top