Posted on 07/04/2015 1:13:35 PM PDT by Okimi2200
The Third Amendment was created to protect your home from being quartered by soldiers without your consent. It has very rarely been a matter of debate or litigation, until now.
Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon recently ruled that the police are exempt from the 3rd Amendment with a case out of Henderson, Nevada after a family had their home broken into and seized by local law enforcement who stated they needed the home to gain a “tactical advantage” against suspected criminals in a neighboring house.
Police actually forced their way into this family’s home, pepperballed the father and his dog and then incarcerated the man for a day.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthandaction.org ...
“If LEOs can invade your home for “tactical” reasons — then they are being permitted to conduct a warrantless search.”
Well, if as you wrote, they could seize and prosecute any “evidence” they see in your home - incident to the “invasion” - then it certainly is a “warrantless” search.
I am wondering if they justified this as the equivalent to “commandeering” someone’s vehicle to chase a felon? IF commandeering is a legal thing? That is what Hollywood always shows. Do you know?
We are living under the government our ancestors tried to protect us from.
BKMK
> In this case, they apparently did ask, were told no, then broke down the door, peppersprayed the homeowner, arrested and jailed them for a day, while occupying their home. Saying No should be respected.
Unless there were exigent circumstances with no other alternatives the officers need to do sone jail time for assault and trespassing
I know no-thingggg.
the lawlessness continues unchecked
This sounds like an “eminent domain” case even if it was for a short period of time. I don’t think that Kelso will rule here, but the use of force by the police should be grounds for a lawsuit on its face (illegal seizure, since there was no search involved).
Also reckless endangerment, esp. if a child was present.
Destruction of private property.
Abuse of power.
Brandishing a firearm against an innocent party.
The list of sueable offenses could just keep going on.
Remember, this is Harry Reid territory where the law is what he/Dems say it is, not what is written.
If that was you, you’d want to live in my neighborhood.
So they want one day house rental?
While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
18 USC § 2384 Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
I would appeal the verdict and with the "case law" as stated above, I would charge the cops, DA, and Judge with treason
Here is the problem.
To win in a civil case, plaintiff must show LIABILITY and DAMAGES.
Judge threw out on liability grounds. Had he not, what were plaintiff’s damages, a new front door and one day’s house rental?
City probably already fixed the door!
Case is a non-starter.
Treason?
Please, that is legal idiocy.
See #44.
P.S. Income taxes are legal, too.
Sorry, totally legally incorrect.
See #44.
Excuse my language but WHAT THE HELL??????? This judge needs dragging off the bench by the hair of his head and his butt ridden off the bench and out of town!!!
These judges need to be remembered when the SHTF.
I’m with you on that!
Thanks for the pings. Thread BUMP!
The point being the government could make an argument for an exigent need, but that doesn’t relieve them of the their obligations to follow both due process and to conpenastion requirements.
are you freaking kidding me?!
judges don’t even bother to read the cliff notes of the bill or rights these days
if little ol’ me sitting in the florida woods knows this is a clear 3rd Amendment violation, any judge that doesn’t see it should be immediately dismissed.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.