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.

**Ouze**

Anyway, good OP - this will be a fascinating case to follow and I hadn't seen it anywhere else.

**Dreadclaw69**

I agree that the Police had little justification for their alleged actions, especially if they restrained someone and then used an incapacitating agent such as pepper spray on him. Not only is it unnecessary, but a lot of Police forces do not permit it's use in confined spaces.

However trying to use the 3rd Amendment and have the Police seen as soldiers in the eyes of the law is unlikely to stand, imagine the effects for posse comitatus.

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:
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.

Except in this case there are quite a number of Amendments within the constitution that outline that this sort of situation just cannot legally happen. It's not a "strange fetishisation", it's one of the basic rights that the People granted the Government when we drafted up the constitution.

Even if Waco is happening right next door to my house, I have no true obligation to do anything other than go about my business as best I'm able to, and not obstruct the LEOs from doing their job, short of them breaking laws to use my residence.

**Alfndrate**

marv335 wrote:
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.

Unless I missed something (which is always an option

), the man who had his door kicked in, was shot with pepper spray pellets, and had his home commandeered was not on a warrant... Thus, no legal right for the cops to enter his domicile

**whembly**

Alfndrate wrote:
marv335 wrote:
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.

Unless I missed something (which is always an option ), the man who had his door kicked in, was shot with pepper spray pellets, and had his home commandeered was not on a warrant... Thus, no legal right for the cops to enter his domicile

Yup... and certainly grounds for lawsuit of epic proportions.

**Necroshea**

Oh look, cops being thugs again and still some here defend them.

Hope they get the crap sued out of them. Will def be following this case.

**Dreadclaw69**

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. 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.

Yeah that write up is pretty damning, the actions of those Police officers is a disgrace.

Monster Rain wrote:
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.

How potential is potential?
If there was an imminent threat then you'd have firmer ground to base your argument. Gearing up, busting in someone's door, cuffing the occupant, shooting both the occupant and his dog with LTL rounds, setting up a command post, going to his parents house and getting the father to leave under false pretenses before making him walk a 1/4 mile before unlawfully detaining him, and then arresting the mother with no legal cause and carrying out illegal searches of private property don't strike me as necessary actions (or the appropriate use of Police resources) if there is an imminent danger of harm.

sebster wrote:
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.

Respect for private property and privacy are now "strange fetishisation of property rights"? So is it appropriate for the Police to commandeer your home with no right to do so?? Do you have any idea of the sort of precedent you're trying to set?
If the Police actually had a legal right to commandeer the property then a warrant would have been issued. Had the home owner then refused to co-operate the Police could have entered and removed him.

**hotsauceman1**

Not everyday you see a 3rd amendment violation such as this.
But seriosuly, they shot the cowering dog?

**Frazzled**

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

3rd Amendment is an interesting take, basically that any gobvernment agent is a government agent, not just military.

As towards charges, good luck. Who guards the guards?

**Alfndrate**

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

3rd Amendment is an interesting take, basically that any gobvernment agent is a government agent, not just military.

As towards charges, good luck. Who guards the guards?

The Watchmen obviously.

**Monster Rain**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How potential is potential?
If there was an imminent threat then you'd have firmer ground to base your argument.

Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.

As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.

Steve steveson wrote:
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..

Ouze wrote:
The victim blaming started early but predictably with this one, huh?

You didn't read the thread very closely.

This line of conversation is based off of reserving judgment to see whether it was reasonable to not cooperate. People are too wrapped up in their rights to realize that they might occasionally have a responsibility to the community. I only hope that the "hurrrr freedom" crowd is never in a situation that is made more difficult for them to be helped by authorities because their neighbor has a warped sense right and wrong.

**Alfndrate**

Can I at least ask the police why they need my house?

If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house" and I say "no" is that cool? If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house, your neighbor is about to go Chris Brown on his wife." and I say "no" is that cool?

Does the amount of information the police give me allow me to make a better decision on the situation and make me more or less of a donkey cave for not letting them in?

**Rented Tritium**

I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.

Agreed. It may be one of multiple motions however. This screams oppression, violation of civil rights etc etc.

**Monster Rain**

Alfndrate wrote:
Can I at least ask the police why they need my house?

I think that would be reasonable.

Alfndrate wrote:
If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house, your neighbor is about to go Chris Brown on his wife." and I say "no" is that cool?

I would say that this is one of the situations that you would be an complete and utter tool for not cooperating, though I don't know why they would need to get a vantage point from another house for a situation that would be easily solved by bum-rushing the guy.

Alfndrate wrote:
Does the information the police give me allow me to make a better decision on the situation and make me less of a donkey cave for not letting them in?

I think it's fair to want to know why they would like to use your property, yes.

**Dreadclaw69**

Monster Rain wrote:

Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.

As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.

Thank you for ignoring much of the rest of what I said.
It's not pedantry, it is a serious question. The Police are trained that even routine traffic stops have the potential to be hazardous. As I said, if there was an imminent risk (and not some vague "potential") then yes I would be more likely to agree with you. But the actions of the Police do not lend themselves to supporting the claim of any real or serious threat to justify their actions.

The homeowner has a right to refuse entry to whomever (s)he sees fit, unless compelled to do otherwise by the law. The Police did not go and obtain a warrant (which would be signed off very quickly if there is an imminent risk of harm), but instead chose to devote time and resources to storming a house, and then using deception and force to commandeer a second house that just happened to be the home of the initial homeowner's parents.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.

Likewise. I think that using the 3rd as a peg to hang your argument is shaky at best, but they do have many other grounds.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Rented Tritium wrote:
I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.

Same here. The good news is that the victims can count on a massive, nationwide lobby group that makes the NRA seem like a high school debating club, and will vigorously protect their third amendment rights!

From the top of my head, I think there has only ever been one 3rd amendment case that has went to the SCOTUS, and they lost that one.

As I've often said, you can't create a constitution with a clear anti-British mandate and expect to survive in the modern world.

**Alfndrate**

Monster Rain wrote:
I think it's fair to want to know why they would like to use your property, yes.

Okay, I'm content with your post/answer

.

I still think the cops could have handled this better, and I think the guy in question could have asked for some more information, but I don't knock the guy for not wanting to let the cops in.

**Monster Rain**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:

Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.

As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.

Thank you for ignoring much of the rest of what I said.
It's not pedantry, it is a serious question. The Police are trained that even routine traffic stops have the potential to be hazardous. As I said, if there was an imminent risk (and not some vague "potential") then yes I would be more likely to agree with you. But the actions of the Police do not lend themselves to supporting the claim of any real or serious threat to justify their actions.

It is 100% pedantry.

Read what I said again. Without knowing what was going on in the other house it's impossible to know if it was reasonable not to cooperate. I didn't ignore what you said, it didn't have any bearing on what I was saying, because I'm talking about a general issue of civic responsibility and not necessarily who was right or wrong in this case. My issue, again, is the idea that simply refusing to help out based on your ability to do so is asinine.

**Dreadclaw69**

Monster Rain wrote:
It is 100% pedantry.

Read what I said again. Without knowing what was going on in the other house it's impossible to know if it was reasonable not to cooperate. I didn't ignore what you said, it didn't have any bearing on what I was saying, because I'm talking about a general issue of civic responsibility and not necessarily who was right or wrong in this case. My issue, again, is the idea that simply refusing to help out based on your ability to do so is asinine.

And my point is that being obliged to open your home without lawful reason to do so, bar some vague notion of threat to another, is hugely asinine and runs contrary to the notions of privacy and private property.
What we do know is that the Police had ample time to indulge in many reckless actions that diverted resources away from the initial incident that called for their presence. On that basis I think it is more than reasonable to say that there was not a sufficient risk of imminent harm.

**Monster Rain**

Your rights trump other peoples' lives?

Where have I read that before?

Anyway, it seems we are talking past each other. It may very well be that the guy was 100% right not to let the cops in. My concern is that people would refuse them entry even if they had sufficient reason to actually need their house to help someone due to, as sebster put it, a property rights fetish.

**Frazzled**

Monster Rain wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Can I at least ask the police why they need my house?
I think that would be reasonable.

No it would be stupid.

Alfndrate wrote:
If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house, your neighbor is about to go Chris Brown on his wife." and I say "no" is that cool?
I would say that this is one of the situations that you would be an complete and utter tool for not cooperating, though I don't know why they would need to get a vantage point from another house for a situation that would be easily solved by bum-rushing the guy.

No it would be stupid.

Alfndrate wrote:
Does the information the police give me allow me to make a better decision on the situation and make me less of a donkey cave for not letting them in?

I think it's fair to want to know why they would like to use your property, yes.

**Monster Rain**

Frazzled wrote:
No it would be stupid.

Care to elaborate?

**Frazzled**

Monster Rain wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:

Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.

As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.

Thank you for ignoring much of the rest of what I said.
It's not pedantry, it is a serious question. The Police are trained that even routine traffic stops have the potential to be hazardous. As I said, if there was an imminent risk (and not some vague "potential") then yes I would be more likely to agree with you. But the actions of the Police do not lend themselves to supporting the claim of any real or serious threat to justify their actions.

It is 100% pedantry.

Read what I said again. Without knowing what was going on in the other house it's impossible to know if it was reasonable not to cooperate. I didn't ignore what you said, it didn't have any bearing on what I was saying, because I'm talking about a general issue of civic responsibility and not necessarily who was right or wrong in this case. My issue, again, is the idea that simply refusing to help out based on your ability to do so is asinine.

If you cooperate, you're a moron.

**Monster Rain**

Frazzled wrote:
If you cooperate, you're a moron.

Not today, Frazzled.

Not today.

**thechosen1**

No matter where you stand on this argument, you all have to agree that since this is a so rarely heard 3rd Amendment case:

**Wyrmalla**

So he wasn't in the right for not letting the police in, but the police were allowed to enter his home by force? I'd say that the police were in the wrong for thinking that they could seize the house without opposition, then for using out of hand force to do so. I think that they could have found an alternative way of pursuing the case outside of setting up in that guy's house. To that end they probably had ulterior motives seeing as they also entered the guy's parent's house too. Thus they knew that they were in the wrong from the start, the results proceeding pulling up at his door just added to that.

**Frazzled**

The police were not allowed to enter his home by force.

**Wyrmalla**

The whole situation just seems suspect to me, not just because of the undue amount of force that they used on him...

**Rented Tritium**

The laws that allow for anything even REMOTELY like this all require serious immediate emergencies of life and death nature.

Obviously they didn't have that if it was just to further an investigation.