Family allegedly forced from home by police files rare 3rd Amendment suit

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

A Nevada family is using a rare legal argument in a lawsuit claiming police tried to commandeer their homes for a surveillance operation and then arrested the homeowners for resisting -- invoking the Third Amendment, which bars soldiers from being "quartered" in a residence without permission.

The Mitchell family, in a lawsuit filed July 1, detailed the incident from July 10, 2011. According to the complaint, it all began when the Henderson city police called Anthony Mitchell that morning to say they needed his house to gain “tactical advantage” in a domestic violence investigation in the neighborhood.

The situation turned ugly when Mitchell refused repeated requests to leave and police smashed through the door, the 18-page complaint states.

Mitchell alleges the police, upon entering his home, forced him to the floor at gunpoint, then shot him and his “cowering” dog with a few rounds of pepper-spray pellets. Police then allegedly handcuffed and arrested Mitchell in connection with “obstructing a police officer” before occupying his home.

It didn’t end at Anthony Mitchell’s house in suburban Las Vegas, the complaint continues. That same day, the officers also took over the home of Mitchell’s parents, Linda and Michael Mitchell, who live in the same neighborhood and are named as plaintiffs.

The police department declined Monday to comment on the case when reached by FoxNews.com, leaving the matter to the court should the case go to trial.

However, the more compelling questions appear to focus on whether the Third Amendment strategy can work, considering the courts would have to consider the police officers as soldiers.

The amendment states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

“I’m confident the Mitchells have a good case,” said Frank Cofer, a partner in the firm Cofer, Geller & Durham LLC representing the plaintiffs.

Cofer told FoxNews.com that what struck him about the case was the officers’ use of military-style tactics.

“And after entering the houses, they drank water, ate food, enjoyed the air conditioning,” he said. “That struck me as quartering.”

The suit alleges that, at the parents' house, police lured Michael Mitchell from his home to a nearby “command center” by saying they needed him to get the neighbor involved in the domestic violence case to surrender. When officers began to backpedal, Mitchell eventually attempted to leave, which resulted in him being handcuffed and eventually charged with obstructing an officer.

Police then returned to Mitchells' house where they allegedly yanked wife Linda from the premises after she refused to let them in without a warrant.

She was not arrested, and police have dropped all charges against the family.

However, the Mitchells are still suing for an undisclosed sum, saying their rights as citizens were violated under the Third Amendment -- as well as the Fourth and 14th amendments -- and that the incident resulted in physical injury, malicious destruction of property and “extreme emotional distress.”

Anthony and Michael also had to pay a bond to secure their release, the suit alleges.

John Yoo, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley’s law school, wasn't so sure about the family's argument. He said the Mitchells may have claims under other federal and state laws “but their chances are very, very low on the Third Amendment.”

Yoo, a visiting scholar for the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute and former Justice Department official, told FoxNews.com the most difficult challenge for them is that there were no "soldiers" in their house, before the court gets into the question of whether "quartering" occurred.

“Local police on law enforcement missions are not soldiers,” he said. But “Nevada should compensate the Mitchells’ for the temporary use of their home and for any damages caused in the operation.”

Among those named in the suit are the city of Henderson, the city police department, the police chief, five officers and the North Las Vegas Police Department.

The suit also alleges both police departments “developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of United States citizens, which caused the violations of the plaintiffs’ rights.”

I'm going to follow this one. Just to see how they're going to classify the LEO....paramilitary be the tie in for the 3rd Amendment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/#ixzz2YW4Nj7j2

**Ratbarf**

I didn't think they could enter your property without either permission or a warrant?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Pretty jacked up... not sure if the 3rd Amendment's the right tactic to take.

**Peregrine**

Forget the third amendment, just charge the police officers as if they'd been civilians doing the same thing. Repeat as necessary until the police learn that they aren't god.

**Somedude593**

Ratbarf wrote:
I didn't think they could enter your property without either permission or a warrant?

They cant, it is illegal to do so without one which is a much stronger argument than the third amendment.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Police charged with a B&E, illegal confinement, possibly kidnapping... I like it.

**wowsmash**

Very strange, I know laws are different from state to state but I didn't think you had give up your house whenever the cops come knocking for stack out location. This country gets freakier every day.

**Monster Rain**

Does it say anywhere what was going on that the police were trying to gain an advantage over?

There's being mindful of one's rights, and then there's being an anti-social jackass.

**KalashnikovMarine**

A domestic violence situation of some kind I thought. Not that it really matters.

Now pick up the can citizen.

**Monster Rain**

It could potentially matter a great deal.

If there is a life or death situation and you are endangering lives with this sort of behavior you're pretty much an donkey-cave. That's why I'm wondering about additional details.

**sebster**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
A domestic violence situation of some kind I thought. Not that it really matters.

It was a domestic violence situation that involved talking to a suspect to get him to surrender. So there was a stand off with police, that may have involved third parties in the house. In which case it only makes sense that police would look to use nearby houses as part of the containment of the situation, and surveillance of the person. And yeah, that means the people involved, unless they had a very good reason, were being donkey caves in denying the police the use of their houses.

That doesn't mean they're not allowed to deny the police the use of their home, but they're most likely being self-entitled nitwits for doing so.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less. They want to put a marksman or observer up, I'll put the ladder out and they can use the roof. They didn't have any qualms about kicking Mitchell's door down, surely this big tough LEOs can go get the actual bad guy instead of picking on innocent civilians who have committed the crime of wanting to be left the feth alone by cops with a power complex.

How's this for a good reason? It's a private home. The cops have absolutely no entitlement to the use of that property, nor do the homeowners have any requirement, legal or moral to assist in any way shape or form in this situation or any other besides keeping to themselves on their private property. Even if Zombie Hitler is in the house across the street and the cops want to get a better look the Mitchells have an absolute right to be secure in their person and property from jack booted feth heads, and they don't even have to be self entitled or nit wits to deserve said rights.
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

Any way here's the full complaint, better write up then Faux.

LAS VEGAS (CN) - Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court.
Henderson, pop. 257,000, is a suburb of Las Vegas.
The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.
"On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.
It continues: "At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use." (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)
The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side 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.'"
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states.
It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
"Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
"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.
"Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
"Addressing plaintiff as 'donkey-cave', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.
"Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.
He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: "Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's pet, a female dog named 'Sam,' was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit."
Anthony and his parents live in separate houses, close to one another on the same street. He claims that police treated his parents the same way.
"Meanwhile, starting at approximately 10:45 a.m., police officers entered the back yard of plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell's residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. The officers asked plaintiff Michael Mitchell if he would be willing to vacate his residence and accompany them to their 'command center' under the guise that the officers wanted Michael Mitchell's assistance in negotiating the surrender of the neighboring suspect at 363 Eveningside Avenue. Plaintiff Michael Mitchell reluctantly agreed to follow the officers from his back yard to the HPD command center, which was approximately one quarter mile away," the complaint states.
"When plaintiff Michael Mitchell arrived at the HPD command center, he was informed that the suspect was 'not taking any calls' and that plaintiff Michael Mitchell would not be permitted to call the suspect neighbor from his own phone. At that time, Mr. Mitchell realized that the request to accompany officers to the HPD command center was a tactic to remove him from his house. He waited approximately ten minutes at the HPD command center and was told he could not return to his home.
"Plaintiff Michael Mitchell then left HPD command center and walked down Mauve Street toward the exit of the neighborhood. After walking for less than five minutes, an HPD car pulled up next to him. He was told that his wife, Linda Mitchell, had 'left the house' and would meet him at the HPD command center. Michael Mitchell then walked back up Mauve Street to the HPD command center. He called his son, James Mitchell, to pick him up at the HPD command center. When plaintiff Michael Mitchell attempted to leave the HPD command center to meet James, he was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of a marked police car.
"Officers had no reasonable grounds to detain plaintiff Michael Mitchell, nor probable
cause to suspect him of committing any crime.
"At approximately 1:45 p.m., a group of officers entered the backyard of plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell's residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. They banged on the back door of the house and demanded that plaintiff Linda Mitchell open the door.
"Plaintiff Linda Mitchell complied and opened the door to her home. When she told officers that they could not enter her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her. One officer, defendant Doe 1, seized her by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.
"Defendant Doe 1 then forcibly pulled plaintiff Linda Mitchell out of her house.
"Another unidentified officer, defendant Doe 2, then seized plaintiff Linda Mitchell's purse and began rummaging through it, without permission, consent, or a warrant.
"Defendant Doe 1 then escorted Linda Mitchell at a brisk pace through her yard and
up the hill toward the 'Command Post' while maintaining a firm grip on her upper arm. Plaintiff Linda Mitchell is physically frail and had difficulty breathing due to the heat and the swift pace. However, Doe 1 ignored her pleas to be released or to at least slow down, and refused to provide any explanation for why she was being treated in such a manner.
"In the meantime, the officers searched and occupied plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and
Linda Mitchell's house. When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor."
Police took Anthony and Michael Mitchell to jail and booked them for obstructing an officer. They were jailed for at least nine hours before they bailed out, they say in the complaint. All criminals charged were dismissed with prejudice. They claim the defendants filed the baseless criminal charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs."
None of the officers were ever subjected to official discipline or even inquiry, the complaint states.
The Mitchells seek punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
They are represented by Benjamin C. Durham, with Cofer, Geller & Durham, in Las Vegas.

**Monster Rain**

You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?

Thanks for the full disclosure. I now know that there's really no further reason to read your posts.

**Seaward**

Monster Rain wrote:
It could potentially matter a great deal.

If there is a life or death situation and you are endangering lives with this sort of behavior you're pretty much an donkey-cave. That's why I'm wondering about additional details.

I'm curious about additional details myself, though my money's honestly on, "bored cops wanting to finally use all that gear with MOLLE on it so they can look all operator-ish on the news" make mountain out of, 'Dude, come on out of the house, you're going to jail,' domestic violence molehill."

**KalashnikovMarine**

Monster Rain wrote:
You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?

I fail to see how that imperative begins to apply for this situation. These cops had plenty of time to go play storm trooper at Mitchell son of Mitchell's house, kick in his door, toss him around, shoot his dog with pepper pellets, move his furniture and eat his food and then play that little "come to the command center and maybe you can help us" game at Mitchell the Elder's house so it can hardly be said the situation was emergent or dynamic. We in fact know nothing about that situation. What we do know is that the cops did an absolutely bad thing in a situation where the home owners were morally and legally just fine to stay in their homes and have the guys with the badges feth right off.

I've saved two lives by my own hands and went far out of my way to do it, that still doesn't mean I have to let cops do whatever the hell they want with my property because they feel like it. I am fully within my rights and my personal morality to tell them to get stuffed.

**Peregrine**

Fun fact: if the police are in your house for something else and you have incriminating evidence in plain sight they can use it. So, if the police decide they need to take over your house and find your drugs sitting on the table you're going to jail. Which makes "we're taking over your house whether you like it or not" a warantless search that you are entirely justified in opposing.

**sqir666**

This is just ridicolous.

I'm doubtful about the 3rd amendment, but the several others do apply though.

**sebster**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops.

Your entire view of the world is completely disfunctional. Just devoid of reality.

Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.

**Steve steveson**

Monster Rain wrote:
You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?

"Yes officer... Please do come in and use my house as part of a domestic violence investigation so that the violent bully you are investigating thinks I'm helping you against him and I become a target"... Ye.. No.

The police can ask but they have no right and you have no obligation, legal or moral, to help them. Especially when they think they have the right to then do this kind of thing, and then start eating your food. It doesn't sound like they were asking very nicely.

Some of your cops in the US are fethed up. People complain about the cops in the UK sometimes, but they don't do half of what I see and hear about some US cops doing.

**marv335**

The police have no legal right to storm into someone's house whenever they feel like it.
If a home owner is asked to allow police in, and he says no, that's the end of it unless they can persuade a judge to provide a warrant and "because we want to" isn't, in my mind at least, a good reason.
I hope the Mitchells take the cops to the cleaners.

**Steve steveson**

sebster wrote:

Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.

It's basic human rights to feel safe and secure in your own property and the police feeling that they can come round and demand use of it at any time breaches this. It is basic human decency to respect someones rights to what they own.

**Seaward**

The "basic human decency" line of thinking relies on there having actually been a credible need for all of this to occur. We don't know that for fact yet. This very well could've been cops just getting a hard-on for playing SEALs for a bit. The phrase "tactical advantage" used by small-town police has me leaning strongly in that direction. If it turns out anyone involved was wearing Mechanix gloves, I'm calling it.

**sebster**

Steve steveson wrote:
It's basic human rights to feel safe and secure in your own property and the police feeling that they can come round and demand use of it at any time breaches this. It is basic human decency to respect someones rights to what they own.

Read the thread. Pay careful to attention to the entirety of what people have said. It will help you understand the points being made people. If you had done so, you would have noticed that I said that a person may well have the right to deny the police the use of their home, but enforcing that right is donkey-cave behaviour unless there was a really good reason for doing so. To which KalashnikovMarine replied "Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops."

To him it doesn't matter if the police might want to access his home in order to help save innocents. It's his home, therefore he can so no to the police, therefore he will say no to the police, because he's replaced any notion of the complex realities of human interaction with a theory that ultimately boils down to nothing more than a fetishisation of property rights.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
The "basic human decency" line of thinking relies on there having actually been a credible need for all of this to occur. We don't know that for fact yet.

Absolutely. Which is why I haven't commented on this case, and instead have commented only on the idea that a person should never allow police the use of their home.

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.

Except it's not just a case of property rights for the sake of property rights. Ignoring the inconvenience of having your house temporarily occupied, it's important for three reasons:

1) It's a warrantless search. This would be less of a problem if the price of getting access to your property without your permission was that the police were unable to use any evidence they find, but that's not the case. If those property rights aren't respected all the police need is a pretense of "needing" your property and they can bypass that whole pesky warrant thing.

2) It's a loss of privacy and security. Sure it might be nice if you voluntarily let the police borrow your house to serve the greater good of society, but it's not exactly a trivial thing to be in a helpless position where your property rights can be ignored whenever the police find it convenient and you can be arrested for objecting. Those property rights exist for a reason, we have a perfectly reasonable expectation of being secure in our private homes and that is a line that needs to be maintained.

3) It's a bad precedent. Maybe it would be different in a country without a pointless and oppressive "war on drugs" and endless problems with police abuse, but the last thing I want to see in the US is the police getting the power to take over a person's home if it's convenient for them to do so. If they get that power in "extreme" cases it won't be at all surprising when the power is expanded more and more.

**Steve steveson**

sebster wrote:

Read the thread. Pay careful to attention to the entirety of what people have said. It will help you understand the points being made people. If you had done so, you would have noticed that I said that a person may well have the right to deny the police the use of their home, but enforcing that right is donkey-cave behaviour unless there was a really good reason for doing so. To which KalashnikovMarine replied "Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops."

How about you stop being condescending? How about you pay careful to attention to the basic premise of what is being said rather than making an argument about something unrelated. This is not about the police saying "please may we use your house. No? Oh ok... sorry to waste your time". The basic point of the whole story was that the police felt they had a right to kick down the door and take over the house. I don't think anyone is saying that the police should not ask. However what you are implying is that the police have a moral right to use someones house and what I'm saying is they don't, buy saying that it is wrong for someone to say no, and that is how the police end up feeling they have a right to do what they did.

**sebster**

Peregrine wrote:
Except it's not just a case of property rights for the sake of property rights. Ignoring the inconvenience of having your house temporarily occupied, it's important for three reasons:

Seriously, read the words that I wrote in my exchange with KalashnikovMarine.

I said 'And yeah, that means the people involved, unless they had a very good reason, were being donkey caves in denying the police the use of their houses.' KalashnikovMarine responded to this, saying 'Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less.'

I mean, fething hell. The guy thinks that even if there's an active hostage situation and he has no legal concerns such as having drugs in his house, he still isn't letting the police in, because 'waarghgarble his home is his property and he ain't letting anyone use it even if its to help save lives.'

And so to answer your three points;

1) Yes, it would be warrantless search, if the police didn't need your permission. But they do, and if you have a good reason to deny them access, then do so. If you don't, then don't be an donkey-cave who's more fixated on needlessly enforcing property rights than helping people.
2) No, it isn't a trivial thing to give up the free use of your house to police, but worrying about a short term personal discomfort when there's something serious happening is really selfish.
3) Sure, but my point of disagreement with KalashnikovMarine isn't about police always having the power to enter your home, it's whether a person should, given no pressing need otherwise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
How about you stop being condescending? How about you pay careful to attention to the basic premise of what is being said rather than making an argument about something unrelated. This is not about the police saying "please may we use your house. No? Oh ok... sorry to waste your time". The basic point of the whole story was that the police felt they had a right to kick down the door and take over the house. I don't think anyone is saying that the police should not ask.

I know what the story is. As I already said, making any kind of comment on the specific case depends on all kinds of information we don't have, such as whether the complaint is even half true. As such, coming down on one side or the other is a total waste of time.

So instead, I made a general comment based on what I thought was a too broad comment made by another poster, in which he suggested it didn't matter what was happening next door. I said from the information it could well have been a serious matter, considering there appeared to be a stand-off with police, and therefore the people were possibly donkey-caves in denying the use of their home. And I then made a clarifying point, that they may well be entitled to deny the police the use of their home, but that doesn't mean they should do so. And that person, bizarrely disagreed with even that, because I didn't realise that 'waarghgarble property rights' had been taken to such a crazy extreme that people were now insisting they will enforce their rights simply because they can.

At which point you wandered in and started a reply that would have been completely unnecessary if only you'd read what had been posted.

However what you are implying is that the police have a moral right to use someones house and what I'm saying is they don't, buy saying that it is wrong for someone to say no, and that is how the police end up feeling they have a right to do what they did.

No, I am not saying that, nor am I implying it. I am saying that individual's, absent a good reason not to, have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police and other citizens. I don't know, and don't much care exactly when police can and cannot enter your property because of a crime committed by a third party. But you, as a human being, have an obligation to society and other people that is simply more important than defending your property rights because you can.

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
The guy thinks that even if there's an active hostage situation and he has no legal concerns such as having drugs in his house, he still isn't letting the police in, because 'waarghgarble his home is his property and he ain't letting anyone use it even if its to help save lives.'

To be fair, a right to privacy only matters if you can say no. If you're socially obligated to say yes then your right doesn't have very much value.

1) Yes, it would be warrantless search, if the police didn't need your permission. But they do, and if you have a good reason to deny them access, then do so. If you don't, then don't be an donkey-cave who's more fixated on needlessly enforcing property rights than helping people.

It could pretty reasonably be argued that anyone has a good reason to deny access, since there's a very real possibility that something you think is innocent could be interpreted as evidence the police are looking for in some case you've never even heard of (for example, they think you have stolen property). With that in mind the best policy is to never talk to the police without a lawyer or allow them access to your property.

Of course this could easily be avoided by throwing out any evidence (short of a dead body/bomb/etc) that the police find if they request access to private property in a situation like this. In that case you wouldn't have a reasonable objection because once the emergency power is invoked you could no longer suffer any legal harm from allowing the police to enter. But I guess it's more important to ensure that you can send someone to jail if you happen to see a bag of pot on the table.

2) No, it isn't a trivial thing to give up the free use of your house to police, but worrying about a short term personal discomfort when there's something serious happening is really selfish.

It's short-term for the immediate occupation, but there's a much broader issue with living in a society where the police can ignore property rights any time they like. It's like with all the various questionably-legal spying the US government has been doing, most people will never suffer even the slightest practical impact from it, but that doesn't stop it from being a disturbing lack of privacy that the government can spy on you without a warrant as long as they call you a terrorist first.

3) Sure, but my point of disagreement with KalashnikovMarine isn't about police always having the power to enter your home, it's whether a person should, given no pressing need otherwise.

And I'm saying that, given the long history of abuse by US police, it's not exactly unreasonable to believe that "no" should be the default answer just for the sake of opposing expansion of police power. Does it hurt society as a whole? Of course. But maybe that's a good reason to reconsider the idea that the constitution is only useful as toilet paper as long as you say you're violating it to fight drugs or terrorism.

**Steve steveson**

sebster wrote:

I know what the story is. As I already said, making any kind of comment depends on all kinds of information we don't have, such as whether the complaint is even half true.

So instead, I made a general comment based on what I thought was a loose comment made by another poster, in which he suggested it didn't matter what was happening next door. I said from the information it could well have been a serious matter, considering there appeared to be a stand-off with police, and therefore the people were possibly donkey-caves in denying the use of their home. And I then made a clarifying point, that they may well be entitled to deny the police the use of their home, but that doesn't mean they should do so.

At which point you wandered in and started a reply that would have been completely unnecessary if only you'd read what had been posted.

No, I was pointing out that you are wrong. Your saying people don't have a moral right to refuse the police use of there house. If you bother to read what I have said., and I mean properly read, not just make up what you THINK I have said, you will see I am disagreeing with the idea that the police have a moral right to enter your house whatever the situation. I am not talking in specifics about the case. I am agreeing with KM that the police do not have a right to enter your house without good reason (i.e. those ones that are legal).

Your making up what you think people are saying based on your own ideas of them. What people are saying is that the police clearly felt they had a right to enter this persons house. You are agreeing with them. You can talk all you want about generalizations but the fact is that in the context of the thread you are talking about generalized moral obligations of people to let the police enter there home. I am saying there is no such moral obligation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
[

However what you are implying is that the police have a moral right to use someones house and what I'm saying is they don't, buy saying that it is wrong for someone to say no, and that is how the police end up feeling they have a right to do what they did.

No, I am not saying that, nor am I implying it. I am saying that individual's, absent a good reason not to, have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police and other citizens.

Weasel words and double talk. "police have a moral right to use someones house"... "I am saying that individual's... have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police" Same difference. Your saying there is a moral obligation on one party therefor justifying the other party's actions to enforce this moral obligation.

Everyone else is saying they have no moral obligation and that the police have a legal and moral obligation to respect the rights and privacy of the owner of the property.

**Ouze**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less. They want to put a marksman or observer up, I'll put the ladder out and they can use the roof. They didn't have any qualms about kicking Mitchell's door down, surely this big tough LEOs can go get the actual bad guy instead of picking on innocent civilians who have committed the crime of wanting to be left the feth alone by cops with a power complex.

How's this for a good reason? It's a private home. The cops have absolutely no entitlement to the use of that property, nor do the homeowners have any requirement, legal or moral to assist in any way shape or form in this situation or any other besides keeping to themselves on their private property

I agree with you. Well, partially, anyway - I probably don't agree that you don't have a moral requirement to assist when lives are at stake (and I don't know that is the case, I'm speaking generally).

But I think you do have the right to say no, and the cops have to respect that. The police have no right to commandeer a private home after the property owner says no unless there is probable cause to raid the second home. I mean, the bottom line is the police said they wanted to use the guys house, he said no, so they smashed in the door, beanbag shot him, arrested him for obstruction (amazingly without killing the dog this time); and used his house anyway. Net result: charges dismissed against everyone, including the neighbor in question. Another awesome win for the good guys.

If you don't think that's a disturbing precedent to set, I don't know what to say. Either we have the rule of law in this country, or we do not. The victim blaming started early but predictably with this one, huh?

**marv335**

The police have a legal right to enter your house when they have a warrant from a judge saying they may do so.
In this case they were acting like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
They have severely overreacted, and have been called on it.