« Deputy stands up for First Amendment | Main | It must suck to be on the other side, part 2,153 »
Sounds like a serious lawsuit
...Against the Henderson, Nevada PD. There was a DV incident near the plaintiff's house, I guess the suspect wouldn't come out. So police decided they needed to occupy plaintiff's house and use it as an observation point. They called him, but he refused. It was his house, after all, and he had nothing to do with the conduct they were investigating.
I guess the Henderson officers weren't accustomed to being told "no," because they figured that that meant he was obstructing justice, so they broke down his door, arrested him at gunpoint, for good measure went to his parents' house arrested them. The prosecutor dropped charges, probably after weeping and moaning "why me?"
UPDATE: I think I know why they wanted plaintiff's house as an observation point. A little research finds that the temperature in Henderson that day was 107.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
Of course not. If the DA tried, the cops in Henderson, Las Vegas (still part of Clark County) and all of Nevada would make his life a living hell.
After all, Clark County is where police executed a man (Erik Scott) for legally carrying a firearm in a Costco. Anything ever happen to those cops? Of course not - the best evidence of their criminal actions, video surveillance footage, was somehow 'lost'.
The cops also illegally searched his house and looted it, eating the victim's food.
I believe Clark County is also where the cops took a defense attorney's files from a courtroom, and photocopied them.
Clearly the Mob still owns Clark County.
...The third amendment starts out, " No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered...." It was put in there to tell the Federal Government what it couldn't do. These cops don't work for the Federal Government. They aren't soldiers. The 3rd amendment doesn't apply.
@Dave D., You are technically correct, but for the following reasons, I hope legally wrong. (I'm not a historian or a trained constitutional scholar, so take the following with a grain of salt.) My understanding was the Bill of Rights was drafted in response to violations of natural rights committed by the British prior to and during the Revolution. At that time, soldiers were supplemental (if not the primary) law enforcement. So James Madison wrote and the 1st Congress adopted the third amendment with the memory of the abuses they suffered under the name of "law enforcement" during peace time fresh in their memories. (It is interesting to note they were pragmatic enough to recognize that during times of war, exigent circumstances may necessitate the violation of natural rights by government authorities.)
Now, 222 years later, law enforcement responsibilities are spread across all levels of government (federal, state, county, city). Do our natural rights evaporate just because they are violated by a non-federal entity? Past rulings by the supreme court would indicate, no, our rights are unalienable, even by lesser levels of government.
This is a case worth watching, and I hope the family has some good lawyers.
....And one of those rights is not to be charged for a crime that doesn't exist.
Obviously the 3rd Amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment, just like the others.
Likewise, the founders would probably see what we now know as the police to be a standing army. For the most part there were no police patrols "enforcing laws" at the time of the founding. Other than, of course, the British Army occupying Boston. The 3rd Amendment states that "No soldier shall..." Doesn't say army, doesn't stay military, it says "soldier". That's a broad term. People marching around under government orders in government issued uniforms, issued with guns, and obeying orders dictated by the government are soldiers, and would be recognized as such by the public when this country was founded. It is only in this modern era that we have essentially fooled ourselves into believing that the police forces we have assembled are not a standing army of soldiers, for better or worse.
Yes, the 3rd Amendment says "soldier," which could mean that the Navy or Coast Guard could be quartered without violating the 3rd. The distinction being that "soldiers" are land-based military and the Navy, obviously, is not.
MMAN - is there authority applying the Third Amendment to the states? I thought the reason we had to have the McDonald v Chicago gun case was because Heller was a DC case and it hadn't been established that the Second Amendment applied to the states.
While it seems logical that the Third would apply to the states, that ain't what controls. Hence my question - has any case already held the Third applicable to the states?
"UPDATE: I think I know why they wanted plaintiff's house as an observation point. A little research finds that the temperature in Henderson that day was 107."
I hope they propped the door back up out of respect for his electric bill.
Constitution of the State of Nevada
Article 1: Declaration of Rights
Section 12: Quartering soldier in private house. No soldier shall, in time of Peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of War, except in the manner to be prescribed by law.
Look to your state constitutions folks, there's a lot of good stuff there.
I'd think the plaintiffs would have better luck under the 5th Amendment takings clause.
I wonder if there is a way to force the DA to enact criminal charges against the officers involved?