Las Vegas, NV police violate 3rd 4th & 14th amendments

EMNofSeattle · Jul 6, 2013

Actually, it appears the 3rd amendment might apply to the states, the 2nd circuit ruled in the early 1980s in Engblom v. Carey that the third amendment applied to the states and that national guard soldiers activated to perform civilian functions qualified as soldiers for the 3rd amendment.

That case involved striking corrections officers at a New York prison, they officers lived in employer provided housing and went on strike, so the corrections department kicked the strikers out and moved national guardsmen into their housing while the NYARNG performed the corrections officers duties.

The case ended up bringing no relief for the Officers since the court also ruled that Hugh Carey was the governor he was entitled to QI but they did incorporate the 3rd in the 2nd circuit and made a loose definition of "soldier"

georg jetson · Jul 6, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
"Incorporation" is a load of horse huey, we are born with rights.

Keep in mind that the "Bill of Rights" was meant as a restraint against the federal government. As you know it didn't grant rights, but it was intended to protect them from the fed. In the case of the Third amendment, it doesn't make sense to incorporate it to the states because soldiers are commanded by the Commander-in-Chief and he's already bound by the Third.

In addition, every state should have something similar to the Third in their constitutions.

Here's the one for my state of La.

§6. Freedom from Intrusion

Section 6. No person shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner or lawful occupant.

minarchist · Jul 6, 2013

Cops blatantly violate the Third Amendment

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

From the article

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.

The cops did not take no for an answer:
[Henderson police 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.

In a sane world, these thugs would have had their skulls and torsos ventilated when they savagely violated an innocent man's home.

minarchist · Jul 6, 2013

Someone beat me to it by a few hours: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ment-case-ya-know-the-3rd-is-not-incorporated

davidmcbeth · Jul 6, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
"Incorporation" is a load of horse huey, we are born with rights.

You know too much. We will send you a telegram stating you won a prize .. just pick it up at a secret location ... congrats...

As for the cops, I would have had a field day with them, given I filed a notice of trespass ... recently, cops were on my block looking for a rabid animal..oddly, they did not come onto my property but walked all around it. I previously told my Chief of Police that employee's claims of "official business" is an affirmative defense that does not exist until plead in court and I have no obligation to believe anything an employee tells me and also if one does not enforce the notice it has no legal meaning, so go on that premise if your town employees wish to enter my land. Seems to have the desired effect.

Citizen · Jul 6, 2013

georg jetson said:
Keep in mind that the "Bill of Rights" was meant as a restraint against the federal government. As you know it didn't grant rights, but it was intended to protect them from the fed. In the case of the Third amendment, it doesn't make sense to incorporate it to the states because soldiers are commanded by the Commander-in-Chief and he's already bound by the Third.

In addition, every state should have something similar to the Third in their constitutions.

Here's the one for my state of La.

§6. Freedom from Intrusion

Section 6. No person shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner or lawful occupant.

Hmm. I wonder.

There were no standing armies, as such, at the ratification of the Bill of Rights. We had a military organization called the army, if I recall, but was pretty small. Not exactly an occupation force you could annoy citizens with by quartering them in homes. So, I'm thinking--off the cuff anyway--that the state militia's are quite applicable.

Citizen · Jul 6, 2013

Nightmare said:
The most obvious obstacle to winning a Third Amendment claim here is that police arguably do not qualify as “soldiers.”

[The Third ]Amendment is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court still has not “incorporated” against state governments.

One interesting additional issue that may be raised by this case is the question of how long “soldiers” have to occupy a home before the incident qualifies as the kind of “quartering” forbidden by the Third Amendment.

The full text of the Mitchells’ complaint is available here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/151769636/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et-al-Complaint

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/

The two I saw standing over a handcuffed man proned out along side the road last week certainly looked like soldiers: olive-green trousers with thigh cargo pockets and matching shirts. Black combat boots. The only thing missing to complete the picture was rifles and helmets. But, then commissioned officer soldiers don't carry rifles. And, helmets are only necessary when your opponent can lob artillery and mortars at you.

Also, here is a Fair Use quote of a recent article. At the linked page, take notice that one of the items supplied to a small city PD is bayonets. As far as I am concerned, that's the end of the argument.

The founders and their contemporaries would probably have seen even the early-19th-century police forces as a standing army, and a particularly odious one at that. Just before the American Revolution, it wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia; it was England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement. This wariness of standing armies was born of experience and a study of history—early American statesmen like Madison, Washington and Adams were well-versed in the history of such armies in Europe, especially in ancient Rome.

If even the earliest attempts at centralized police forces would have alarmed the founders, today’s policing would have terriﬁed them. Today in America SWAT teams violently smash into private homes more than 100 times per day. The vast majority of these raids are to enforce laws against consensual crimes. In many cities, police departments have given up the traditional blue uniforms for “battle dress uniforms” modeled after soldier attire.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/...ro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

Lasjayhawk · Jul 6, 2013

article: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/07/06/shelton-on-the-3rd-amendment-and-modern-police/

fuq for Eye:I’ve enjoyed Mike Shelton’s editorial cartoons ever since I was a regular reader of the Orange County Register. He’s now at Watchdog.org, a publication of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, and he’s just as incisive as ever. Today, Mike — who comments here at Hot Air as Cartooner — tackles the unusual 3rd Amendment case in Nevada, which Jazz covered yesterday on the main page:

the cartoon: priceless

georg jetson · Jul 6, 2013

Citizen said:
Hmm. I wonder.

There were no standing armies, as such, at the ratification of the Bill of Rights. We had a military organization called the army, if I recall, but was pretty small. Not exactly an occupation force you could annoy citizens with by quartering them in homes. So, I'm thinking--off the cuff anyway--that the state militia's are quite applicable.

Sounds right to me...

Taking it a bit further, did we have policemen?

Citizen · Jul 6, 2013

georg jetson said:
Sounds right to me...

Taking it a bit further, did we have policemen?

Funny you should ask.

"'Under the criminal justice model known to the framers, professional police ofﬁcers were unknown,' [Dr. Roger] Roots writes."

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/...ro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

Also, if you want some really surprising information, google the white paper Are Cops Constitutional by Dr. Roger Roots. All I can say about it is wow.

davidmcbeth · Jul 6, 2013

Citizen said:
Funny you should ask.

"'Under the criminal justice model known to the framers, professional police ofﬁcers were unknown,' [Dr. Roger] Roots writes."

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/...ro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

Also, if you want some really surprising information, google the white paper Are Cops Constitutional by Dr. Roger Roots. All I can say about it is wow.

So who killed dogs back then?

eye95 · Jul 7, 2013

Whether they were called police, constables, sheriffs, reeves, or whatever, we have people assigned the duty of policing since the early 1600s in this country.

Implying that the Constitution did not envision today's police is like saying that it does not address television, the Internet, or "modern sporting rifles."

Policing existed back then in a vastly different form than today, just as media and weapons existed back then in vastly different form.

The modern police department (which is the model adopted by most sheriff's offices too) is here to stay and quite constitutional. Some of the things they do are not constitutional. That is what we need to address, not their existence.

Citizen · Jul 7, 2013

eye95 said:
Whether they were called police, constables, sheriffs, reeves, or whatever, we have people assigned the duty of policing since the early 1600s in this country.

Implying that the Constitution did not envision today's police is like saying that it does not address television, the Internet, or "modern sporting rifles."

Policing existed back then in a vastly different form than today, just as media and weapons existed back then in vastly different form.

The modern police department (which is the model adopted by most sheriff's offices too) is here to stay and quite constitutional. Some of the things they do are not constitutional. That is what we need to address, not their existence.

Why not take a moment and read Dr. Root's paper, linked above, Are Cops Constitutional?

Separately, just because someone or someones covered the policing function in the past in no way justifies battalions of paramilitaries today. While your technology analogy could be accurate, its not accurate in this case. You skip how policing changed from back then to today, omitting, among other things, how government constantly and steadily grabs more and more power, and how bureaucracies eventually come to a point where their mission is not to serve, but to ensure their own survival.

Using your own words, whether called police, constables, shire reeves, etc, if today's police were as proportionately few as they were back then, and did only the things they did back then, then your internet analogy would be far more accurate. Then it wouldn't matter what you called them.

eye95 · Jul 7, 2013

Cops are not unconstitutional. Some of the things they do may be, but the institution is no more unconstitutional than any other law enforcement agency--mainly because, except for federal LEAs and actions that a local or State police agency may take that are in direct violation of a specific constitutional provision, those local and State police agencies are not the business of the Constitution.

Check your State constitutions on a one-by-one basis if you think that the mere existence of a particular LEA violates it.

Freedom1Man · Jul 7, 2013

eye95 said:
Cops are not unconstitutional. Some of the things they do may be, but the institution is no more unconstitutional than any other law enforcement agency--mainly because, except for federal LEAs and actions that a local or State police agency may take that are in direct violation of a specific constitutional provision, those local and State police agencies are not the business of the Constitution.

Check your State constitutions on a one-by-one basis if you think that the mere existence of a particular LEA violates it.

If none of the applicable constitutions provide for the government to create a police force, then yes the police are unconstitutional.

eye95 · Jul 7, 2013

Nightmare said:
Police powers extend by constitutional law from COTUS Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the Taxing and Spending Clause, and its component, the General Welfare Clause.

Even if that is correct, that would apply to federal LEA. State and local LEA are not addressed in the US Constitution, except as to what they may not do to infringe our rights.

The existence of local and State LEAs is not a constitutional issue.

Gil223 · Jul 7, 2013

This is just WRONG on so many levels... POLICE COMMANDEER HOMES, ARREST HOMOWNERS!

Just got this a little while ago from DailyCaller.com, and the following are selected excerpts (high points) from that article (fair use applies)...

A family is suing the city of Henderson, Nevada for violating their Third Amendment rights — the constitutional prohibition against quartering soldiers in a private home during peacetime without the owner’s consent. Police officers contacted Anthony Mitchell on July 10, 2011, with a request to use his house as a lookout while investigating his neighbor. When Mitchell told police that he did not wish to be involved, the complaint alleges, police decided they would use the residence anyway.
Mitchell claims this is exactly what happened. First officers “smashed open” Mitchell’s door with a “metal ram” after he did not immediately open it himself. He then “curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face,” as the police shot Mitchell and his dog — which the family claims did not attack the officers — several times with “pepperball” rounds.
The ordeal didn’t end there. Mitchell’s parents, Michael and Linda, were also neighbors to the home where police officers suspected domestic violence, so the police wanted to use their home as well. Michael Mitchell was invited to a local police command center to assist “in negotiating the surrender of the neighboring suspect." But upon arriving at the commander center, the elder Mitchell was informed the negotiations wouldn’t be taking place, the complaint says. When he decided to leave, he was also arrested. The elder Mitchell’s wife was not arrested, but she was roughly escorted from her home while other officers entered the house without permission, the complaint alleges.The charges against both the father and the son were dismissed.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/05/l...owners-to-investigate-neighbor/#ixzz2YOGhUH6V

First, I believe their lawsuit is really pushing the limits of 3A. However, charging the officers with "breaking and entering under color of law" and "unnecessary use of force" for that breaking and entering, and pepper spaying the homeowner and his dog would be appropriate. These people had committed no crimes. We have not yet quite become a police state, but if this kind of ill-treatment of the citizenry goes unpunished we will be one step closer to that police state. The city of Henderson NV should be sued into bankruptcy for such blatant disregard of our Constitution. Personally, I believe the Fourth Amendment would be more applicable here:

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.

The victims were no longer secure in their persons or houses, when their front door was breached by the police ram, and the owner assaulted by the officers. Their house had been seized as soon as they were relieved of control thereof, and their effects were not secure since they were noticeably "out of place" when the owners regained control of their home. I am not normally anti-LEO, but the tactics employed were reminiscent of those expected from the KGB/FSB - not American police officers who had sworn an oath to "protect and defend" our Constitution. They are fortunate that their unwarranted tactics weren't met with a barrage of gunfire from the homeowners, and that pepper spray was the only thing with which they shot the victim and his dog. A person who knowingly violates an oath is not a person of honor - nor are they worthy of trust in any position where they can exert power of others. Just my 2¢!

Pax...

Gil223 · Jul 7, 2013

Nightmare said:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ment-case-ya-know-the-3rd-is-not-incorporated

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...NV-police-violate-3rd-4th-amp-14th-amendments

So, what's your point? It's really rude to simply reply to a post with links that share other people's ideas... unless you have none of your own. Pax...

georg jetson · Jul 7, 2013

Gil223 said:
So, what's your point? It's really rude to simply reply to a post with links that share other people's ideas... unless you have none of your own. Pax...

Perhaps he was suggesting that there are threads on this story already.

davidmcbeth · Jul 7, 2013

eye95 said:
Even if that is correct, that would apply to federal LEA. State and local LEA are not addressed in the US Constitution, except as to what they may not do to infringe our rights.

The existence of local and State LEAs is not a constitutional issue.

Well, it is ... 10th amendment ... goes to the states ....

We would have a total federalized police if it were not for those picky local police unions ... they'll buy them off sooner or later

Las Vegas, NV police violate 3rd 4th & 14th amendments

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned