I just found thid interesting that they included the 3rd Amendment in the suit.
QuoteNevada cops sued over forced occupation of private homes
It's been a few hundred years since the Third Amendment was written to keep King George from quartering British troops in American homes, but a lawsuit just filed in Nevada suggests it's as relevant as ever.
The framers of the Constitution ratified the Third Amendment to ensure citizens would never again have to accommodate soldiers, but a few centuries later it's become more-or-less an antiquated law that's rarely referenced in federal court. That changed recently when a family from Henderson, Nevada accused the local police department of constitutional violations after officers of the law allegedly took residence in two neighborhood homes.
According to a legal filing first obtained by Courthouse News Service, a handful of Henderson Police Department officers and the city itself are being sued for an array of charges — including Third Amendment violations — over an incident that mirrors the making of the American Revolution.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say police officers demanded they be allowed to occupy two homes owned by their clients on the city's Eveningside Avenue in 2011 in order to conduct an investigation involving a neighbor's residence. When the owners refused to comply with the request, they were reportedly arrested for obstruction and brought to jail.
Police were investigating an incident at 363 Eveningside Avenue that July when Officer Christopher Worley called up the occupant of a neighboring property, Anthony Mitchell, and said he'd need to use his house in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' over the neighbor's residence. Mitchell reportedly made it clear that he did not want to get involved in the probe and told Worley he would not be able to offer assistance. According to the lawsuit, Officer David Cawthorn, Sgt. Michael Waller and Worley all then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use."
"It was determined to move to 367 Eveningside and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested," the report determined.
Moments later, the officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," after which they "loudly commanded" they be let inside. Seconds later, Mitchell's door was knocked down with a metal battering ram and the police entered his home.
"As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor," the suit alleges.
As the police moved into the home, Mitchell was reportedly called an "asshole" by the cops, ordered to crawl on the floor and then shot several times with non-lethal 'pepperball rounds' from close range. He was then arrested for obstructing an officer while the cops combed through his house without permission, but not before they also opened fire at the plaintiff's dog, prompting it to howl "in fear and pain."
At the same time, officers approached Anthony's parents down the block at 362 Eveningside and asked father Michael Mitchell if he'd accompany them back to a local 'command center' to assist with negotiating the surrender of the neighbor suspected of domestic violence. When he got there, though, he became concerned that the cops had tricked him into leaving so they could try to gain access to yet another home. Michael Mitchell then tried to head back home, but when he left the command center he was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of a cop car.
Attorney for the family say there was no reasonable grounds to detain Michael Mitchell, nor probable cause to suspect him of committing any crime. That didn't keep officers from holding both him and his son Anthony for nine hours, however, before they were ultimately released after posting bond.
All criminal counts against the Mitchells were later dismissed with prejudiced, but the family has now lobbed charges of their own. Their attorney is asking for a trial by jury to hear the case and ideally award his clients punitive damages for violations of the Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
I don't think that what they did would be described as 'quartering'. Then again, I suppose judges will be making the decision, and they're known for their inability to comprehend law and their perversity.
Sounds like some coppers need to spend some time in jail. If the facts are as reported, of course. That's some pretty high-handed criminal behavior, there.
Who knows if the rest of it is against the law. Personally, I think it's wise to forbid people from resisting the police, but it could be that they overstepped their bounds.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2013, 06:06:56 PM
Sounds like some coppers need to spend some time in jail. If the facts are as reported, of course. That's some pretty high-handed criminal behavior, there.
Yeah, pretty stupid and definitely not by the rules. Somebody doesn't want you to use their home for a surveillance? Find another solution. Dumbasses.
11B4V, you really have got to link the source.
http://rt.com/usa/nevada-third-amendment-lawsuit-710/ :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2013, 09:59:11 PM
11B4V, you really have got to link the source.
http://rt.com/usa/nevada-third-amendment-lawsuit-710/ :rolleyes:
Yea, thanks for the "Garbonize".....dick :P
Quote from: 11B4V on July 07, 2013, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2013, 09:59:11 PM
11B4V, you really have got to link the source.
http://rt.com/usa/nevada-third-amendment-lawsuit-710/ (http://rt.com/usa/nevada-third-amendment-lawsuit-710/) :rolleyes:
Yea, thanks for the "Garbonize".....dick :P
You should know better then to give us Pravda on the Potomac. I looked around and found another source. It seemed that the basic facts hold up.
Wow, if accurate as reported then pretty bad all around by the cops. Plus making all that noise and showing presence by breaking down the door of the innocent homeowner to use his home as a surveillance post. I'd assume that would also alert the people in the home being targeted for surveillance!
Nobody said they were smart.
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Cops should go to jail. Suing the town just screws the taxpayers.
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Fuck you Guller.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2013, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Fuck you Guller.
I think that was meant to be more of a comment about New Jersey/Soviet Union than your honorable profession as a whole.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2013, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Fuck you Guller.
Well, I don't. Even if prosecutors aren't all goo-goo eyed when it comes to cops, there is still a huge practical conflict of interest to overcome. Prosecutors generally work with cops on the same side, so it's not easy to endanger that relationship unless there is an open-and-shut case of police brutality. It goes for double in Nevada, which has an atrocious record of prosecuting cops for wrongful deaths at their hands.
Quote from: Syt on July 08, 2013, 09:21:33 AM
I think that was meant to be more of a comment about New Jersey/Soviet Union than your honorable profession as a whole.
Then again, maybe not.
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 09:27:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2013, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Fuck you Guller.
Well, I don't. Even if prosecutors aren't all goo-goo eyed when it comes to cops, there is still a huge practical conflict of interest to overcome. Prosecutors generally work with cops on the same side, so it's not easy to endanger that relationship unless there is an open-and-shut case of police brutality. It goes for double in Nevada, which has an atrocious record of prosecuting cops for wrongful deaths at their hands.
They're lawyers. Betraying people is their nature, sort of like scorpions.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2013, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Fuck you Guller.
Yeah, it's Beeb's boss making the calls to treat cops with kid gloves.
Creative, but equating police officers with "soldiers" is a stretch. The National Guard, as the successor to the state Militias, has been held subject to the Third Amendment, but police forces are a different story.
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 09:27:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2013, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
Is there any backup mechanism for criminally prosecuting those cops? I wouldn't really trust my local Beeb to impartially investigate and prosecute cops for pretty much anything.
Fuck you Guller.
Well, I don't. Even if prosecutors aren't all goo-goo eyed when it comes to cops, there is still a huge practical conflict of interest to overcome. Prosecutors generally work with cops on the same side, so it's not easy to endanger that relationship unless there is an open-and-shut case of police brutality. It goes for double in Nevada, which has an atrocious record of prosecuting cops for wrongful deaths at their hands.
Again, fuck you.
When jurisdiction have dabbled with hiring independent special prosecutors they run into a pretty fundamental roadblock - your prosecutors have no experience prosecuting, and thus they're not very good at it.
I have no problem telling cops when they've fucked up, and I have some sharply worded emails (sometimes cc'd to superiors, othertimes not) to prove it.
But just to re-assure DG, what happens at least up here is that when cops need to be prosecuted, you get a prosecutor from a different region or jurisdiction. And while I haven't had to prosecute a cop yet, just a few weeks ago I did prosecute the spouse of another Crown (and I like Crowns more than I like cops).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2013, 10:36:46 AM
Creative, but equating police officers with "soldiers" is a stretch. The National Guard, as the successor to the state Militias, has been held subject to the Third Amendment, but police forces are a different story.
Where would paramilitary organizations fall?
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2013, 11:18:18 AM
Where would paramilitary organizations fall?
They'd fall downward. An updraft might lift them for a bit, but the general trend would inevitably be downward.
Teacher jokes ^_^
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2013, 11:18:18 AM
Where would paramilitary organizations fall?
Don't know - this doesn't get litigated a lot.
In this case, there are a lot of other violations in play other than the 3rd amendment.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2013, 11:26:36 AM
Teacher jokes ^_^
I actually never heard that one before. I never appreciated how lucky I was. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2013, 10:36:46 AM
Creative, but equating police officers with "soldiers" is a stretch. The National Guard, as the successor to the state Militias, has been held subject to the Third Amendment, but police forces are a different story.
I think there's a case from the 1970's that involves prison guards "occupying" civilian homes in the context of a prison riot. I forget if the court that heard the case found that the 3rd Amendment applied.
Edit: Was confused, the case I was thinking had to do with national guard troops being utilized to replace striking prison guards, so we are probably thinking about same case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
Apparently it's the only reported appellate decision on the 3rd Amendment.
Just out of curiosity, why would they go with a quartering argument, as opposed to, say, eminent domain?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 08, 2013, 07:21:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why would they go with a quartering argument, as opposed to, say, eminent domain?
I'd think issue would be unreasonable search and seizure. Don't know if the police actually searched the place, but they did sieze it.
I'm sorta of curious who signed off on such a stupid plan. Or if anyone signed off on it. Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something. It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 09:36:19 PM
Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something. It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.
That comes from a sense of a lack of accountability within an organization without proper leadership and supervision. And that starts at the top.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 08, 2013, 09:53:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 09:36:19 PM
Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something. It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.
That comes from a sense of a lack of accountability within an organization without proper leadership and supervision. And that starts at the top.
Yeah, I know. You got a keep a close eye on cops. They'll run amok without a strong hand to keep them in line. I remember our old police chief saying that the police force attracts a lot of bad apples who want to have the authority to push people around. Since they make up a significant percentage of the people there you can't fire all these jackasses, so you really need to keep them on a tight leash. After he left the new police chief was injured somehow and was paralyzed from the waist down and sometimes couldn't move his arms. The city was afraid of firing a cripple, so they kept him on. It didn't take long till you had a lot of cases of abuse and corruption.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 08, 2013, 07:21:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why would they go with a quartering argument, as opposed to, say, eminent domain?
Eminent domain, no, but:
QuoteTheir attorney is asking for a trial by jury to hear the case and ideally award his clients punitive damages for violations of the Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress
So they have plenty of other bases covered.
Quote from: stjaba on July 08, 2013, 07:11:09 PM
Edit: Was confused, the case I was thinking had to do with national guard troops being utilized to replace striking prison guards, so we are probably thinking about same case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey.
That's the one. 2nd circuit.
The incorporation part of the decision is probably sound, in light of what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject in McDonald v. Chicago (the Chicago handgun ban case).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 08, 2013, 07:21:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why would they go with a quartering argument, as opposed to, say, eminent domain?
Eminent domain, no, but:
QuoteTheir attorney is asking for a trial by jury to hear the case and ideally award his clients punitive damages for violations of the Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress
So they have plenty of other bases covered.
What? No trespass?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 10:03:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 08, 2013, 09:53:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 09:36:19 PM
Either way, the chief of police should have to answer of something. It's genuinely bizarre behavior and I have no idea why they thought they could get away with it.
That comes from a sense of a lack of accountability within an organization without proper leadership and supervision. And that starts at the top.
Yeah, I know. You got a keep a close eye on cops. They'll run amok without a strong hand to keep them in line. I remember our old police chief saying that the police force attracts a lot of bad apples who want to have the authority to push people around. Since they make up a significant percentage of the people there you can't fire all these jackasses, so you really need to keep them on a tight leash. After he left the new police chief was injured somehow and was paralyzed from the waist down and sometimes couldn't move his arms. The city was afraid of firing a cripple, so they kept him on. It didn't take long till you had a lot of cases of abuse and corruption.
In all fairness to the police, it's not just cops, though. Seedy's comments apply to any organization.