Sounds to me like the judge was absolutely right. Something can be wrong without it being a violation of a specific constitutional provision.
From Wikipedia Third Amendment to the United States Constitution :
The Third Amendment has been invoked in a few instances as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Justice William O. Douglas used the amendment along with others in the Bill of Rights as a partial basis for the majority decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which cited the Third Amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.
-PJ
But, but, but.... What about the Penumbra of the Amendments?
And the Interstate Commerce clause.....?
And a Woman’s Right to Privacy....?
/S
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.