Page 1 of 1

Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:01 am
by jcolvin2
Wasn't quite sure where to put this topic, as the Potpourri section is closed, but enjoy:

A man who had been arrested in Henderson, Nevada, after refusing to allow police to use his home in order to obtain a "tactical advantage" against the occupants of a neighboring house, has sued the police under the Third Amendment, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the homeowner's permission.

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

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:53 am
by JamesVincent
I don't think the Third would apply since they were not "soldiers" of any type. I could see the Fourth applying since they had no warrant (at least it is not in the article) and no probable cause for entry and search. I could see sueing for a lot of other things besides the Third. Cruel and unusual punishment, illegal search and seizure, animals rights violations.

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:54 am
by notorial dissent
I think the gentleman in question is long on imagination and indignation, and short on sense and the law. If what I remember reading about it was correct, that amendment was aimed solely at the National gov't, and as far as I know has never been litigated at any level. I also do not think that local police really come under the heading of military. I also do not see how that could be considered "quartering" anymore than police having evacuated an area for reason could be, I think what was done would have come under and been covered by the general police powers of the state. I think the litigant is due for a serious disappointment when he gets to court.

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:32 am
by wserra
While the complaint does recite the Third Amendment, it is a civil rights action per 42 USC 1983. It also recites the Fourth and Fourteenth, which I think fit the facts much better than allegations of quartering troops.

nd, I don't think this is a frivolous action by any means. While I am quite interested in the cops' version of what happened, this is a case that, if it came to my office, I would definitely look into. Given that the Mitchells were actually prosecuted, they probably have a pretty good idea of the contents of police paperwork.

We'll see.

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:09 pm
by notorial dissent
My understanding, from the coverage we got here, was that he was basically interfering in a police emergency situation, and that is what got him in trouble. I will admit that I haven't seen what I would call an unbiased report of what actually happened, but it sounds remarkably similar to police having told you to clear and area and refusing. I think if he was complaining that they damaged his property or something like that, and then refused to pay for it that he certainly would have grounds for complaint, but otherwise, not so much. So, I guess we'll see when and if it ever comes to trial.

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:18 pm
by KickahaOta
Wow. And here I was just thinking the other day that the Third Amendment was the poor forgotten stepchild of the Bill of Rights -- that nobody ever complained about that one or brought it up in court. Seen any soldiers quartered in homes lately? Nope. Problem solved.

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:56 pm
by Famspear
wserra wrote:....I don't think this is a frivolous action by any means. While I am quite interested in the cops' version of what happened, this is a case that, if it came to my office, I would definitely look into.....


Yeah, wow. This is not my area of expertise, and I just briefly skimmed the news report and the complaint, but I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall listening to the conversation between the police and an assistant district attorney -- and I would hope that there was such a conversation -- prior to the police having decided to take this action (assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's version of the facts is substantially correct).

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:17 pm
by JamesVincent
Famspear wrote:
wserra wrote:....I don't think this is a frivolous action by any means. While I am quite interested in the cops' version of what happened, this is a case that, if it came to my office, I would definitely look into.....


Yeah, wow. This is not my area of expertise, and I just briefly skimmed the news report and the complaint, but I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall listening to the conversation between the police and an assistant district attorney -- and I would hope that there was such a conversation -- prior to the police having decided to take this action (assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's version of the facts is substantially correct).


I read the complaint after Wes posted it earlier and, I tell you, if it is 50% correct then there are some questions that need to be answered.

Re: Third Amendment Claim

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:38 am
by Unidyne
I live in Henderson, Nevada. The claim the police are making is that the man in question is suspected of alerting his neighbor, who is being questioned on domestic assault charges, to the activities of the police.

Link: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime ... ts-suspect