PDA

View Full Version : Would you believe, a lawsuit on **3rd Amendment** grounds?



Little-Acorn
07-05-2013, 01:50 PM
No joke.

Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

That amendment has its roots, obviously, in Revolutionary War days, when the British military did exactly that to many American homes. But it hasn't had much application since then.... except maybe, now.

Some cops wanted to use a guy's house to watch his neighbors in a domestic-violence case. But they apparently wouldn't take "No" for an answer.

Calling a policeman a "soldier" might be a bit of a stretch. But then, considering how these cops were acting, maybe not.

It's noted in the article that one of the complaints, is that the cops didn't show the homeowner a warrant. But by the 3rd amendment, even a warrant shouldn't have mattered. "Soldiers" can't do this, even WITH a warrant, in times of peace. (We are at peace, aren't we?). Only "in time of war", can the gummint, any gummint, make laws to "quarter" them in a private home without the owner's consent.

Sometimes these "stakeouts" can take days, or even weeks. If that's not "quartering", what is?

------------------------------------------------

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

Police Commandeer Homes, Get Sued

Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Last Update: 10:27 AM PT
by MEGAN GALLEGOS

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."

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.

fj1200
07-05-2013, 02:08 PM
Hmm:


The Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's power to commandeer private property but imposed strict limits. In United States v. Russell, the court noted:

Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized and appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner . . . but the public danger must be immediate, imminent, and impending, and the emergency in the public service must be extreme and imperative, and such as will not admit of delay or a resort to any other source of supply, and the circumstances must be such as imperatively require the exercise of that extreme power in respect to the particular property so impressed, appropriated, or destroyed.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars

Not exactly on point but suggests that they would be in the wrong; Federal though.

I see big money in Mitchell's future though.

Marcus Aurelius
07-05-2013, 02:14 PM
When this goes through the courts, I hope they end up owning the township.

Marcus Aurelius
07-05-2013, 02:17 PM
Hmm:

The Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's power to commandeer private property but imposed strict limits. In United States v. Russell, the court noted:

Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized and appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner . . . but the public danger must be immediate, imminent, and impending, and the emergency in the public service must be extreme and imperative, and such as will not admit of delay or a resort to any other source of supply, and the circumstances must be such as imperatively require the exercise of that extreme power in respect to the particular property so impressed, appropriated, or destroyed.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars

Not exactly on point but suggests that they would be in the wrong; Federal though.

I see big money in Mitchell's future though.

Not sure a domestic disturbance case qualifies there.

aboutime
07-05-2013, 02:20 PM
No joke.

Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

That amendment has its roots, obviously, in Revolutionary War days, when the British military did exactly that to many American homes. But it hasn't had much application since then.... except maybe, now.

Some cops wanted to use a guy's house to watch his neighbors in a domestic-violence case. But they apparently wouldn't take "No" for an answer.

Calling a policeman a "soldier" might be a bit of a stretch. But then, considering how these cops were acting, maybe not.

It's noted in the article that one of the complaints, is that the cops didn't show the homeowner a warrant. But by the 3rd amendment, even a warrant shouldn't have mattered. "Soldiers" can't do this, even WITH a warrant, in times of peace. (We are at peace, aren't we?). Only "in time of war", can the gummint, any gummint, make laws to "quarter" them in a private home without the owner's consent.

Sometimes these "stakeouts" can take days, or even weeks. If that's not "quartering", what is?

------------------------------------------------

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

Police Commandeer Homes, Get Sued

Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Last Update: 10:27 AM PT
by MEGAN GALLEGOS

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."

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.


Little-Acorn. Sad thing is. A large majority of American citizens have no idea what the 3rd amendment says, means, or that it even exists.
Something else most Americans; even those who know about the 3rd amendment, do not know, or understand is. When there is any kind of Emergency situation on THEIR PROPERTY. Such as a Fire, or Police Incident that requires their presence.
The PROPERTY instantly becomes the temporary possession of the FIRE CHIEF, or POLICE OFFICERS at the time of the incident, and until the incident is declared legally ended.
Basically. Like almost every other law we have. Someone has figured a way to overrule, or circumvent the laws.
That is what the Obama administration, and Congress do every day.

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

fj1200
07-05-2013, 02:21 PM
Not sure a domestic disturbance case qualifies there.

Exactly. There's hardly anything imminent about a stake-out.

revelarts
07-05-2013, 03:34 PM
How could the cops come close to thinking that crap was legal.
"We need to take your house for a 'tactical advantage'."
ok um, No.

We are told when a woman says "no" that that suppose to mean "no".
But a home owner says no to those cops and they bust your che.. door in, pepper spray you and call you names because you ought to like it. "cooperate"

Crazy

hjmick
07-05-2013, 03:49 PM
Mitchellville, Nevada...

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Kathianne
07-05-2013, 11:09 PM
How could the cops come close to thinking that crap was legal.
"We need to take your house for a 'tactical advantage'."
ok um, No.

We are told when a woman says "no" that that suppose to mean "no".
But a home owner says no to those cops and they bust your che.. door in, pepper spray you and call you names because you ought to like it. "cooperate"

Crazy

Good on him to sue, wouldn't be surprised that this goes to SCOTUS. Has anyone mentioned what the police did to the dog?

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


... He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: "Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's pet, a female dog named 'Sam,' was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit."...

Kathianne
07-05-2013, 11:18 PM
Police as soldiers would seem a 'stretch' not so long ago, since 9/11 that has changed. Guess who's looking into the militarization of police?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html


<!-- HUFFPOST REPORTS

--> <!-- Entry --> <!-- google_ad_section_start --> ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation Posted: 03/06/2013

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a nationwide campaign (http://www.aclu.org/militarization) to assess police militarization in the United States. Starting Wednesday, ACLU affiliates in 23 states are sending open records requests to hundreds of state and local police agencies requesting information about their SWAT teams, such as how often and for what reasons they're deployed, what types of weapons they use, how often citizens are injured during SWAT raids, and how they're funded. More affiliates may join the effort in the coming weeks.


Additionally, the affiliates will ask for information about drones, GPS tracking devices, how much military equipment the police agencies have obtained through programs run through the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, and how often and for what purpose state National Guards are participating in enforcement of drug laws.


"We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice, which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."

...

fj1200
07-05-2013, 11:24 PM
Good on him to sue, wouldn't be surprised that this goes to SCOTUS.

I would be. For that to happen the city would have to defend their right to access to property in such cases all the way up which I'd think they'd be loathe to do especially with the expected bad press. Mitchell would certainly have the motivation to appeal but I doubt he'll have to.

Marcus Aurelius
07-05-2013, 11:25 PM
How could the cops come close to thinking that crap was legal.
"We need to take your house for a 'tactical advantage'."
ok um, No.

We are told when a woman says "no" that that suppose to mean "no".
But a home owner says no to those cops and they bust your che.. door in, pepper spray you and call you names because you ought to like it. "cooperate"

Crazy

If he didn't want them in his house, he shouldn't have decorated it so provocatively.

Gaffer
07-06-2013, 09:23 AM
This reads like something from the onion. It's outrageous to say the least. These cops wanted to use this guys house for a stake out? A stake out means moving into a place covertly and quietly watching the subject. Busting down a door with a battering ram and shooting pepper guns and screaming police and get down on the floor is not covert. What did the neighbors think? Sounds like the entire department needs to be replaced.

avatar4321
07-08-2013, 09:36 PM
I cannot comprehend this. The police seriously thought this was a good idea and legal to do? Why would anyone think that?

This really happened? I hate saying this but its hard to trust anything happening nowadays.

DragonStryk72
07-08-2013, 10:55 PM
I think the only way that this idiocy could have been worse is if they'd killed the man, or his dog. I mean, this was a failure at every single level possible. For one, does the guy they were actually doing this to catch have precisely and exactly one neighbor? Think about it, this was a suburb outside of Las Vegas, so there had to be other people about.

Second, failing that, why not put surveillance inside the house of the suspect? I mean, they clearly had permission to engage surveillance, so why not use means within the residence of the suspect? Was it really more efficient, tactical, and cost effective to bash in a man's door, scare the living hell out of him, wound him and his dog, call attention to the police presence, and drag him out into the public, than it would to place a few small microphones about the house while no one's home?

Failing every single other thing, how can you possibly think that you're going to get any decent surveillance after this event? I mean, really, how much more blatantly could you have posted the sign "Hey, the cops are here!"?

logroller
07-09-2013, 04:41 AM
Should be interesting to see how this works out. It seems there's only been one other case citing the third and it was the national guard under state authority, and they ruled that it did apply to the state by virtue of the 14th(?). Police powers are under state authority too I believe, so it follow suit (no pun intended) that police would also be proscribed. I wonder, what's the blacks law definition of 'quartering'; free legal dicionary says its boarding and lodging or either. It seems apparent that it was, in fact, lodging. Also, I would think the fifth amendment was violated under the takings clause.

I wonder if evidence gathered on the neighbor could be excluded as having been illegitimately seized.

Marcus Aurelius
07-09-2013, 07:17 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/


She was not arrested, and police have dropped all charges against the family.

However, the Mitchells are still suing for an undisclosed sum, saying their rights as citizens were violated under the Third Amendment -- as well as the Fourth and 14th Amendments -- and that the incident resulted in physical injury, malicious destruction of property and “extreme emotional distress.”
Anthony and Michael also had to pay a bond to secure their release, the suit alleges.


They KNOW they were in the wrong, that they violated the families rights. I hope this family OWNS that town when this is all finished.