July 5, 2013

"Even the Third Amendment isn't safe."

"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...."
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.
Police lookout = quartered soldiers? There's also the question whether the 3d Amendment even applies to local government, but obviously there are other claims here and the mere reference to the 3d Amendment creates a sense of alarm about the intrusions.

59 comments:

rhhardin said...

It's actually a busybody problem leading to the creation of feifdoms with swat teams.

X said...

look, just because the police wear nazi helmets, carry machine guns, own tanks, and call everyone not them civilians, doesn't mean they are soldiers.

Michael said...

The govt. owns everything. It is at its pleasure that you occupy. This is the very essence of the current regime's belief which magnifies the growing power of govt at the local level. Remember, if you are pilled over by the cops with twenty grand in cash in your pocket you can be arrested and your money coviscated. Or worse.

traditionalguy said...

The militarization of police does amount to a standing Army. Therefore the 3rd applies as a bar of abuses of local citizens by a foreign power's invasion of our City.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

They broke down the man's door with a battering ram.

Clyde said...

This country is going to hell in a handbasket. That sounds like neither "protect" or "serve." I hope that the cops involve get the justice they deserve "served" to them.

Tibore said...

"Police lookout = quartered soldiers? There's also the question whether the 3d Amendment even applies to local government"

Since I'm not a law student, I have to ask this question: The linked Wikipedia article does suggest that it's in question, but also that the various circuit are leaning towards the provision applying to the states. Am I right or wrong in reading it that way?

X said...

look, it's not like George III used soldiers to do police work like arresting people.

Nonapod said...

Yeah has that ever been tested? If the "Soldiers" part only specifically refers to the Federal level military rather than possible any other state, local, or municipal level law enforcement or para-military groups then that's a pretty big loophole.

Scott M said...

Even if it's not a 3rd Amendment violation (police vs troops), this certainly sounds like some local law enforcement went overboard and two or three ought to be losing their jobs.

ironrailsironweights said...

Even if it's not a 3rd Amendment violation (police vs troops), this certainly sounds like some local law enforcement went overboard and two or three ought to be losing their jobs.

Cops cannot be fired. They are "heroes," and therefore completely protected from criticism.

Peter

Big Mike said...

The third amendment claim guarantees that the suit will get publicity, which helps the plaintiff and hurts the Henderson police department.

I have an interesting question for you, Professor. Suppose the police forced their way in as part of a stakeout that had nothing to do with the family being intruded upon, and police found evidence of some other crime, drug paraphernalia for instance, or a whiskey still in the basement? Would that evidence be admissible?

It seems to me that, like frat boys on campuses, police need to learn that "no" means "Hell no!"

edutcher said...

So we're all clear:

AMENDMENT III

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.

traditionalguy said...

The militarization of police does amount to a standing Army. Therefore the 3rd applies as a bar of abuses of local citizens by a foreign power's invasion of our City.

Read the amendment. It's about Our Troops more than the Limeys*.

And, as tg notes, we're talking the militarization of police (Choom's Civilian Defense Corpse?).

An interesting legal point.

* During WWII, US troops (Rangers and others) taking the British Army Commando Course in Scotland were regularly boarded in civilian homes as there weren't enough billets on post.

Baronger said...

let's see the first, and fifth amendment apply locally. The Supreme court is pretty much saying the 2nd does too. So I'm pretty sure the 3rd will as well.

If the police are acting like soldiers now, does that mean we can also start charging them with war crimes?

Edgehopper said...

If the penumbras and emanations of the 9th amendment protect abortion and gay sex, surely the penumbras and emanations of the 3rd amendment prohibit a militarized police force from setting up shop in an innocent family's home.

edutcher said...

BTW, about 10 years ago, the Lefties started counting the 3rd, as well as the 2nd, Amendment as "obsolete".

Mogget said...

How about we argue that cops with weapons that "belong only on the battlefield" must be soldiers?

MadisonMan said...

The police use a battering ram to enter the house and shoot the dog.

This is a family that did absolutely nothing wrong.

WTH is wrong with the Police these days?

Larry J said...

An interesting legal point.

* During WWII, US troops (Rangers and others) taking the British Army Commando Course in Scotland were regularly boarded in civilian homes as there weren't enough billets on post.


Two points:

1. We compensated those civilians who quartered our troops. The 3rd Amendment says troops can't be quartered in private homes without the owner's permission.

2. That happened in the UK where the 3rd Amendment doesn't apply.

Ann Althouse said...

"Since I'm not a law student, I have to ask this question: The linked Wikipedia article does suggest that it's in question, but also that the various circuit are leaning towards the provision applying to the states. Am I right or wrong in reading it that way?"

It hasn't come up too often, but I would assume it would be incorporated, given the standard.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mitchell the Bat said...

In all fairness to the cops, it's not always easy being courteous and intimidating at the same time and some hardheads just won't play ball.

Icepick said...

WTH is wrong with the Police these days?

Government is ascendent, and the police with them.

But really, this is nothing new to poor people. The police act like thugs in poor neighborhoods all the time. It's just spreading to middle class neighborhoods now. Of course the middle class is getting poorer all the time....

edutcher said...

Larry J said...

An interesting legal point.

* During WWII, US troops (Rangers and others) taking the British Army Commando Course in Scotland were regularly boarded in civilian homes as there weren't enough billets on post.


Two points:

1. We compensated those civilians who quartered our troops. The 3rd Amendment says troops can't be quartered in private homes without the owner's permission.

2. That happened in the UK where the 3rd Amendment doesn't apply


My point exactly.

Those Rangers probably never thought about the Third Amendment until then.

And, since British and other Allied troops were similarly quartered, I'd expect the British government did the compensating.

X said...

you don't work for free, so no, you roided out pussies can't use my house for free. besides, your well known hyper fear precedes you, and I don't want pant shitters with guns around my dog.

edutcher said...

Icepick said...

WTH is wrong with the Police these days?

Government is ascendent, and the police with them.

But really, this is nothing new to poor people. The police act like thugs in poor neighborhoods all the time. It's just spreading to middle class neighborhoods now. Of course the middle class is getting poorer all the time....


FWIW, and to play devil's advocate, I once heard some cops talk on this subject and one point they made was, if all you see in those neighborhoods is crime and degradation, you tend to make assumptions about the people there.

What's happening now is, I think, something else entirely.

YMMV

traditionalguy said...

The British troops sent to occupy Colonial ports were here to police revenue collections and import/export restrictions. They were IRS Swat teams backed up by warships in the harbor.

Then the Tea Party structure back.

X said...

so basically the police committed gross domestic violence because this guy wouldn't turn his house over to them for a domestic violence investigation. are they on drugs? wait, they're cops, of course they are.

Icepick said...

FWIW, and to play devil's advocate, I once heard some cops talk on this subject and one point they made was, if all you see in those neighborhoods is crime and degradation, you tend to make assumptions about the people there.

edutcher, that's crap regardless. Most of the people in bad neighborhoods aren't actually committing violent crimes. And that doesn't explain why the rookie cops are usually just as bad as the veterans.

Gahrie said...

but obviously there are other claims here and the mere reference to the 3d Amendment creates a sense of alarm about the intrusions.

The facts of the case are pretty alarming to me all on their own.

Larry J said...

t's happening now is, I think, something else entirely.

For a long time, most people supported their local police because they believed the cops were there to protect them from the bad elements in those other neighborhoods. What's happening now is that the cops are destroying that good will by treating everyone like they're bad elements, be it in the name of the War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, or whatever. Goodwill, once lost, is very difficult to regain. When even small town police departments are laying in heavy firepower, you have to wonder who they see as threats.

To any cops who might read this, you're no better than the worst cops you allow to remain on your force. If you look the other way when a fellow cop is abusive or corrupt, you're just as bad. If you don't like it, then you need to clean up the bad elements from your force.

The Drill SGT said...

MadisonMan said...
WTH is wrong with the Police these days?


two families

They raided 362 Eveningside drive and bust the door, shot the man and dog.

and went to 367 Eveningside where they lured the homeowner out of the house with lies, and ultimately arrested him when he wanted to return home.

they busted the door on his wife and hauled her off, arrested her and held the couple for 9 hours.

by coincidence, the guy at the first house is the son of the second couple.

since some of it occurred inside one of those DHS funded Mobile Command Centers, some senior police official had to be present

make the F'ers pay....

Marie said...

I hope that the cops involve get the justice they deserve "served" to them.

They won't. Even if they are fired, the police union will get their jobs back for them.

edutcher said...

Icepick said...

FWIW, and to play devil's advocate, I once heard some cops talk on this subject and one point they made was, if all you see in those neighborhoods is crime and degradation, you tend to make assumptions about the people there.

edutcher, that's crap regardless. Most of the people in bad neighborhoods aren't actually committing violent crimes. And that doesn't explain why the rookie cops are usually just as bad as the veterans.


They're trained by the vets.

As I said, YMMV.

Whether anybody likes it, that is the way some of them think.

Maybe it's time more people than just the Lefties started taking an interest in such things and started pushing for reform.

Bob Ellison said...

If the case goes far enough, maybe it will present an opportunity for someone like Clarence Thomas to question the validity of the incorporation doctrine.

X said...

how crooked are the police? consider the fact that none of these guys will be arrested by the "good" cops.

The Drill SGT said...

MadisonMan said...
WTH is wrong with the Police these days?


two families

They raided 362 Eveningside drive and bust the door, shot the man and dog.

and went to 367 Eveningside where they lured the homeowner out of the house with lies, and ultimately arrested him when he wanted to return home.

they busted the door on his wife and hauled her off, arrested her and held the couple for 9 hours.

by coincidence, the guy at the first house is the son of the second couple.

since some of it occurred inside one of those DHS funded Mobile Command Centers, some senior police official had to be present

make the F'ers pay....

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Police lookout = quartered soldiers?

Yes. When you put it into the context of when the Constitution was written and WHY the 3rd Amendment exists.

The right of people to be secure in their homes. The right to NOT have your home taken over by the government for no cause of your own, but for the convenience of the Government for any and sundry trumped of reason. What part of the 3rd Amendment is unclear.

The 5th Amendment also should be included here as there was NO due process or legitimate reason for the Government to invade these homes.

Are you good with the police taking over YOUR residence and trashing your house, eating your food, occupying your private spaces .....without your consent?

I'm not!

At least they didn't kill the poor dog. THIS TIME.

Tibore said...

"Ann Althouse said...

It hasn't come up too often, but I would assume it would be incorporated, given the standard."


Thanks, Professor!

MadisonMan said...

make the F'ers pay....

Total agreement. Man, THAT'S a jury I'd like to be on.

Take all the award money out of the police pension fund. That might wake them up. Serve and protect indeed.

RigelDog said...

I would very much like to know if the situation next door was of an emergency/hostage/neighborhood evacuation type, because that is the only case in which the police action could even be remotely justified. What was the given reason for forcing the the parents out of their house, I wonder?

RigelDog said...

I would very much like to know if the situation next door was of an emergency/hostage/neighborhood evacuation type, because that is the only case in which the police action could even be remotely justified. What was the given reason for forcing the the parents out of their house, I wonder?

Paul Risenhoover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sydney said...

I don't recognize my country anymore.

Cedarford said...

I believe the law, tested law, allows the police to commandeer resources,including vehicles and homes, in an emergency situation where public safety is at risk.

That is different than "quartering"...which would be cops showing up at various houses where the owner is obligated to to feed them and give them a bed/bedroom.

This case sounds like more bad behavior by "hero cops". But not, acting under emergency powers and law to comandeer citizen's resources for use or as part of normal police/fire marshall protocol. Fire Marshalls can take control of a fire scene and bar access to homeowners until fire is out, fire dept actions and investigation done. Police have same powers when a crime scene exists. This requires nothing of what libertarians worship - a lawyer rewarded for bundling money for Clinton or Carter or whatever Senator or Goveror applies issuing a piece of holy paper called a warrant.

This power also extends in national disaster areas for housing emergency workers in hotels, farms, private family dwellings, private warehouses. local schools, etc.

In US law, while the homeowner in emergency does not have an option of rejecting a cop sealing off his store as a crime scene, placement of a lookout or sniper in an emergency, 20 firefighters brought in following a tornado needing housing...they try to get permission and if rejected look elsewhere..but in crunch time they can comandeer.

And it is noteworhy that compensation must be given for rent, resources used.

Kelly said...

I wonder if it attracted the attention of the neighbors they wanted to spy on when they broke down the door with a battering ram? Didn't that sort of defeat the whole purpose of the survellience?

Skyler said...

If the Constitution includes a right to kill babies, if forcing people to use government sponsored medial care is a tax, if taking property from one private party and giving it to another private party is eminent domain, then surely the third amendment contains the elasticity to protect people from the police taking over their home and shooting their dog when they haven't committed a crime.

But that would require a Court that thinks individuals have rights. They're more likely to decide that the citizen only has rights if they don't interfere with the government.

Skyler said...

If the police need a warrant to enter your home if you've committed a crime, what makes them think they can enter your home without a warrant if they think your neighbors are committing a crime?

James Pawlak said...

Please note that the police are now armed and dressed at a more "military " level than is often the case for in-combat soldiers. Such storm-troopers are more of a risk to rights than are our military, who have a greater respect for the Constitution than too many police departments.

Jason said...

By the way: The mayor of Henderson?

Democrat.

prairie wind said...

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, by Radley Balko.

Cedarford said...

Skyler said...
If the police need a warrant to enter your home if you've committed a crime, what makes them think they can enter your home without a warrant if they think your neighbors are committing a crime?

===================
Again, Skylar- police, fire, and national disaster recovery people can commandeer your house, your car,your store,or resources therein in a a legally defined emergency.
It has nothing to do with criminal search. It is getting the resources needed in disasters or other public safety emergencies.
Including fires. Including evidence processing at a crime/homicide/accident scene even if it is parties unknown and unrelated to the owner.
No warrant required.

bagoh20 said...

I wonder which domestic violence was worse, the one the cops were trying to see or the one they were committing.

This is pretty common today where the cops take an approach of we need to destroy the village to save it. Destroy your family to save it, destroy your home, and kill your dog to save them from the weed.

Robert Cook said...

The militarization of the police follows our engagement in prolonged warmaking abroad as night follows day.

The question is: does the locality where this occurred have any laws on the books requiring citizens to surrender their domiciles or services to the police? If not, under what law or rationale were the family arrested?

All of you who rooted for (or still root for) our warmaking abroad can be thanked as being complicit in this inevitable turn of affairs in a country that has been turned to a "war mentality."

Fûz said...

What aspect of quartering caused the Founders to draft the 3rd? I don't think the costs and inconvenience of putting Soldiers up in their homes was all of it. Weren't these Soldiers also providing eyes and ears in the homes of Colonists, much like Prism has done today? In that case, couldn't a case be made that the 3rd Amendment protects against spying on people by putting a Government presence in the home? It wouldn't preclude searches or seizures.
FWIW, this is not my idea, it appeared in a Whole Earth Review lettitor many years ago.

Robert Cook said...

"...police, fire, and national disaster recovery people can commandeer your house, your car,your store,or resources therein in a a legally defined emergency."

Was this a "legally defined emergency," and, if so, by whom and using what definition?

TmjUtah said...

I can't remember who to credit, but I heard it explained that a cop begins by seeing cops, civilians, and criminals. He evolves to seeing cops, victims, and criminals.

And about fifteen years in, it is often become US and THEM.

This is a 3d amendment issue, and the reason has less to do with troops as much as it has to do with starting to fight back against the State somewhere, anywhere at all..

mariner said...

sydney,

I don't recognize my country anymore.

It's not your country anymore.

Terry Josiah said...

Hu, 2011!?...why are we hearing about it now?
Where are the state police and/or the FBI? If that happened to me I would be calling the immediately, plus the local media....and the county sheriff.
Something fishy here.