Judge: Police takeover of Henderson homes not covered by Third Amendment

https://www.reviewjournal.com ^ | February 16, 2015 - 1:37pm | By CARRI GEER THEVENOT

[redreno]

Members of a Henderson family may proceed with their civil rights case against police officers who took over their homes without warrants in 2011, but a federal judge has thrown out the family’s unusual Third Amendment claim.

Michael and Linda Mitchell and their adult son, Anthony, filed the lawsuit in 2013 against Henderson and North Las Vegas police. The case included a seldom-raised claim that police violated the Third Amendment, which places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes.

“While we are sorry that we will not be able to have a jury decide whether the Mitchell family’s Third Amendment rights were violated, the judge’s order was well-reasoned, and we respect the court’s decision,” said attorney Frank Cofer III, who represents the Mitchells. “There are plenty of other constitutional rights at issue, and the case is proceeding on these claims.”

Henderson City Attorney Josh Reid called the Third Amendment claim a “red herring” and said he believed the plaintiffs’ lawyers raised the novel issue to make news.

“We’re pleased that the judge limited the scope of the case, and we’re going to continue to litigate to defend our police officers,” Reid said.

[Mr. K]

APPEAL THAT DECISION

If this kind of takeover is NOT covered by the 3rd amendment then what is?

And give that smarmy defense attorney who called it a ‘red herring’ a good ass-beating

[left that other site]

They should have used the 4th Amendment.

[vette6387]

They are:

“I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment,” Gordon wrote. “This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment.”

Lawsuit involves both First and Fourth Amendment violations.

[vette6387]

BTW, Josh Reid is indeed one of Dingy Harry’s offspring!

[Nevadan]

Yeah. His dad made phone calls and got his son appointed as city attorney. The city even changed the job description requirements to accommmodate little Josh Reid, whose previous experience had been in environmental, energy and regulatory matters.

[OneWingedShark]

> If this kind of takeover is NOT covered by the 3rd amendment then what is?

I agree, but the judge's decision isn't entirely without merit: the third specifically mentions "soldiers" and so in order to be operative it should be proven that the police are soldiers. (This, I think, would be a good issue to let the jury decide.)

And give that smarmy defense attorney who called it a ‘red herring’ a good ass-beating

Well, it'd probably be easier to make a list of lawyers that don't need one of those than those who do. ;)

[left that other site]

GOOD!

[Above My Pay Grade]

I tend to agree with the judge regarding the 3rd Amendment. The police aren’t really soldiers and I am not sure what they did counts as “quartering” which implies the soldiers living there.

That said, it seems like a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. In addition, I think the police probably committed multiple felonies against the residents.

[Jean2]

Now there is a big surprise! /sarc

[Manly Warrior]

If police are soldiers then they are effectively neutered by posse comitatus-

[Oatka]

I agree, but the judge's decision isn't entirely without merit: the third specifically mentions "soldiers" and so in order to be operative it should be proven that the police are soldiers.

The police are constantly referring to us as "civilians", so the "soldier" epithet should stick.

[backwoods-engineer]

If the police are not a standing army, what is?

If the police taking over your house for their use in a "stakeout" is not a violation of your constitutionally-enumerated 3rd Amendment rights, I don't know what is.

What is "unusual" about this?

We live in Upside-Down World.

[OneWingedShark]

>> I agree, but the judge’s decision isn’t entirely without merit: the third specifically mentions “soldiers” and so in order to be operative it should be proven that the police are soldiers.
>
> The police are constantly referring to us as “civilians”, so the “soldier” epithet should stick.

More [dis]concerting is the military-style equipment, gear, and tactics.
I think a good case could be made that they *are* “soldiers” — take pictures of soldiers geared up and police geared up and present it to the jury... but that presupposes that the jury would be allowed to try the facts of the case as well as the law.

[Oatka]

I think a good case could be made that they *are* “soldiers” — take pictures of soldiers geared up and police geared up and present it to the jury... but that presupposes that the jury would be allowed to try the facts of the case as well as the law.

A good point for any attorney reading this.

[SgtHooper]

LMAO!