Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1 Protecting your Third Amendment rights.... 
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,150
    http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/07/0...ce-seize-home/


    I don't know if this equates but it should be interesting to watch. Unless they get a court order to use their home I don't see how they can lose.
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/07/0...ce-seize-home/


    I don't know if this equates but it should be interesting to watch. Unless they get a court order to use their home I don't see how they can lose.
    It doesn't equate. Police are not soldiers, and because a lawyer seems to want to make a name, they will lose... This is most clearly a 4th Amendment case.
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    It doesn't equate. Police are not soldiers, and because a lawyer seems to want to make a name, they will lose... This is most clearly a 4th Amendment case.
    ...And 5th/14th 'Taking without due process.' However the 3rd Amendment claim is not necessarily DOA, there were no police as we know them in 1792, all the direct functions our highly-paramilitary police perform now were performed by soldiers before the Revolution, while sheriffs and constables were primarily officers of the court who would serve warrants and see to the execution of court-imposed punishments...if they did a forcible entry, they generally borrowed soldiers from the nearest garrison to do so. Police in any recognizable form did not exist in England or the US before the end of the early 19th Century, and even then still didn't look much like what we know today until after WW1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    It doesn't equate. Police are not soldiers, and because a lawyer seems to want to make a name, they will lose... This is most clearly a 4th Amendment case.
    Not only that, the 3rd amendment pertains to soldiers during war time.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member ReinMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Luna Pier, MI
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Not only that, the 3rd amendment pertains to soldiers during war time.
    Actually, the Third addresses both peacetime and wartime 'quartering of troops'.

    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.
    Have to agree with Tanker on the definition of 'Soldier'; at the time the amendment was written, and as far back as there have been organized militias, soldiers have been used as the means by which force of law was applied.

    Also, the Third has been cited in support of an implicit right to privacy under Fourth:

    Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.

    Constitutional and legal technicalities aside, what happened was just wrong, and I hope the cops involved all lose their badges.
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.

    ~John Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,055
    But the quartering of troops is only in the time of war.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    The article indicates that this goes way beyond quartering. The police wanted to use the Mitchell home as an observation post to watch his neighbor (apparently, there was a domestic violence issue). They then decided to break into his home, assault him, arrest him and then take over the home. From the article:


    The Mitchell family says that’s essentially what happened when Henderson police allegedly arrested them for refusing to let officers use their homes for a “tactical advantage” in a domestic violence investigation into a neighbor, according to an official complaint.

    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.

    According to Courthouse News Service, the police department decided that if Mitchell refused to leave or open the door, officers would force their way in and arrest him.

    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.

    Pepperball is a projectile containing chemical irritant pepper spray, which is released upon impact.

    Afterward, Mitchell was arrested for “obstructing a police officer.”

    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 family claims that when she was allowed to return, “the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about… Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar, and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.”

    There's a whole slew of Constitutional rights violated here. The taking of the home violates the 5th and 14th, as cited elsewhere, but there is also a 4th Amendment violation. The text states that "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 forced entry, seizure of the home and arrest constitutes a violation of the rights of Mitchell. He was charged with "obstruction of a police officer", which is usually applied to persons who interfere with an arrest by attempting to physically hamstring the police. The arrest was completely trumped up. The detention of the father was also illegal, as he was not a suspect and had no obligation to be present for a false negotiation attempt (in fact, he had no obligation to be present for a real one, but chose to assist the police). The Henderson PD has a huge lawsuit coming, and the Third Amendment piece is a stretch, because while the definition of troops at the founding would certainly have included a police force as we now understand them, the question of whether they were "quartered " in the house may be an issue. I hope that the attorney is filing under multiple violations.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member ReinMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Luna Pier, MI
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    But the quartering of troops is only in the time of war.
    Not necessarily. During a CO's strike in NJ, IIRC, they were evicted from on-site employee housing, and their quarters were given to the National Guardsmen replacing them.

    The state was sued (unsuccessfully) on 3rd Amendment grounds. While they were unsuccessful, I would point to that as a clear example of peace-time quartering of soldiers.
    I believe the point they lost on was the 'but in a manner to be prescribed by law.' That, or actual ownership of the quarters was at issue...
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.

    ~John Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member ReinMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Luna Pier, MI
    Posts
    776
    They have filed a federal lawsuit. More here:

    Henderson family sues police for breaking into their homes

    Members of the Mitchell family said they had done nothing wrong when Henderson police broke into their two homes without warrants, according to a federal lawsuit.

    The family on July 10, 2011, had refused to let SWAT officers use their homes to perform surveillance in what authorities suspected was an ongoing domestic violence incident involving a neighbor.

    Officers then manhandled Linda Mitchell and arrested her husband, Michael Mitchell, and her son, Anthony Mitchell, charging them with obstructing a police officer, family members allege.

    Police also shot Anthony Mitchell and the family’s dog, Sam, with a “pepperball gun,” similar to a paint ball gun that holds pepper spray.

    The lawsuit, filed earlier this week in U.S. District Court, said the Mitchells’ constitutional rights were violated, including their Third Amendment right that prohibits soldiers from quartering in a home without the homeowner’s consent.
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.

    ~John Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    But the quartering of troops is only in the time of war.
    You're not getting it. ReinMan quoted it correctly, but maybe the antiquated language is interfering with your understanding of it.

    "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" - translated into modern English means - "Soldiers may not be quartered in private homes without the consent of the owner in peacetime, but in wartime, soldiers can be so quartered without the owner's consent but only under the strict due process of a legal procedure which we will specify by law at some future date."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •