Update to old thread: Judge rules police can occupy your home, violate 3rd amendment

A judge has made his ruling on a 2013 case

In this recent ruling, federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed the Third Amendment claim [HT: VC reader Sean Flaim]. Although it occurred several weeks ago, the ruling seems to have gotten very little attention from either the media or legal commentators outside Nevada. That is unfortunate, because the ruling raises important issues about the scope of the Third Amendment, and its applicability against state and local governments. Here are the key passages from the opinion:


In the present case, various officers of the HPD and NLVPD entered into and occupied Linda’s and Michael’s home for an unspecified amount of time (seemingly nine hours), but certainly for less than twenty-four hours. The relevant questions are thus whether municipal police should be considered soldiers, and whether the time they spent in the house could be considered quartering. To both questions, the answer must be no.

I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment. This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment. Because I hold that municipal officers are not soldiers for the purposes of this question, I need not reach the question of whether the occupation at issue in this case constitutes quartering, though I suspect it would not.

Now yes, there is a previous thread, but it is 2 years old and was started when the case was originally filed. I started this thread as an update, if you will to include the judge's ruling. According to the judge, the police are NOT the military, therefore, it is NOT a violation of the 3rd Amendment for the police to literally break into your home, arrest you and detain you for some time while the police take over your home to try and capture a criminal. In his ruling, he stated that the police are essentially never military. The then is, what happens when they do become it?

This judge may have opened a portal. There was no reason for the police to commandeer this man's home, nor his parent's home, nor was there any reason for the police to completely search both the homes, and the vehicles without a warrant. It won't be long before this becomes standard practice of the police in many cities. And all of this was for a domestic violence situation next door to this man's home!!! There was no reason to take over this home, search the home, arrest this man, etc..., all over a domestic violence situation, and worse, the judge says this is perfectly ok.

Original 2 year old thread.

Mods, if you wish to close this thread, I'll understand, I thought to start a new thread since the other was 2 years old, and this is an addendum, if you will.

a reply to: Anyafaj

After reading your quote this stuck out to me.

and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment

It seems to me that the lawyer that made the petition cited the wrong amendment . Soldiers are federal employees police are civil employees. So It sounds like the suit was brought incorrectly and the judge was forced to rule on the merits of the petition.

The Third Amendment (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime or wartime.

Now let me be clear I completely agree that this was the fourth amendment violation.........

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

But I think an overzealous ( or not real bright) lawyer pursued this either to make a name for himself or because he was ill informed.

If the suit would've been brought under the fourth amendment and was denied I like you would be very upset.

It seems the police can not only pull you over for no reason, detain you, take your property on a whim but can now occupy your home should they want, and that's just the stuff they can do legally, never mind their administering instant justice in whatever fashion they choose.
The police have far too much power these days. Judges have failed miserably in protecting the rights of the people.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Anyafaj

After reading your quote this stuck out to me.

and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment

It seems to me that the lawyer that made the petition cited the wrong amendment . Soldiers are federal employees police are civil employees. So It sounds like the suit was brought incorrectly and the judge was forced to rule on the merits of the petition.

The Third Amendment (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime or wartime.

Now let me be clear I completely agree that this was the fourth amendment violation.........

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

But I think an overzealous ( or not real bright) lawyer pursued this either to make a name for himself or because he was ill informed.

If the suit would've been brought under the fourth amendment and was denied I like you would be very upset.

Considering the police did a search of the home and vehicles without a warrant, I'm surprised the lawyer didn't try to get the lawsuit in under the 3rd, and also the 4th. That way if the judge ruled the 3rd out, he could still rule the police violated the 4th.

originally posted by: Greathouse

Now let me be clear I completely agree that this was the fourth amendment violation.........

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

But I think an overzealous ( or not real bright) lawyer pursued this either to make a name for himself or because he was ill informed.

Let me firmly affix my tin foil hat with flashing red lights... okay... got it...

Or maybe it was a deliberate deflection to keep the issue unresolved. I completely agree that this was a 4th Amd issue rather than a 3rd Amd issue. So if you and I can figure that out, why couldn't an attorney who spent a pretty penny to learn this?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It seems the police can not only pull you over for no reason, detain you, take your property on a whim but can now occupy your home should they want, and that's just the stuff they can do legally, never mind their administering instant justice in whatever fashion they choose.
The police have far too much power these days. Judges have failed miserably in protecting the rights of the people.

I really would hate to see just how far this really can go. This is not the America I recognize.

a reply to: Anyafaj

Very good point. Your judgment also makes me think that the lawyer was mainly grandstanding.

They will have the right to be shot at when real Americans say it's over. I want them to escalate it to the next level. Awaken the giant and see the wonders of this world. One step closer to the edge. Bring that #.

a reply to: Anyafaj

Lest anyone forget what country we're living in:

(I particularly like the bit from about 4:45 to 4:52. Classy as hell.)

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It seems the police can not only pull you over for no reason, detain you, take your property on a whim but can now occupy your home should they want, and that's just the stuff they can do legally, never mind their administering instant justice in whatever fashion they choose.
The police have far too much power these days. Judges have failed miserably in protecting the rights of the people.

That's why I am extra nice to cops nowadays. I use to bitch at them when they pulled me over and sometimes acted like an ass.

But now its just yes sir and no sir.

Says the Spider to the Fly...Please enter my Happy Home

a reply to: Anyafaj

I wonder if the neighbor they were trying to infiltrate was a drug dealer. If so, then the action would be part of the "War on Drugs" and the police could be considered soldiers, imo.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It seems the police can not only pull you over for no reason, detain you, take your property on a whim but can now occupy your home should they want, and that's just the stuff they can do legally, never mind their administering instant justice in whatever fashion they choose.
The police have far too much power these days. Judges have failed miserably in protecting the rights of the people.

I think you have the last part WRONG...judges have NOT failed..YOU the American people have failed and failed worse than imaginable.

You americans sit there and defend your 2nd Amendment with ferocious mouthing (never action) and yet you let all the other Amendments just fly out the window. You bought it on yourselves and will reap what you sow as a nation.

A once great country now ruled by NOT the people but the men in uniform.

a reply to: Anyafaj

A police officer I was speaking to about the recent events involving police and their actions told me that police can kick your door in, handcuff you in your own home, search and seize anything they want, and take you to jail for up to 72 hours, then let you go and there is nothing you can do about it.

I asked how that was possible with the fourth amendment. He said it was simple. If they intend to use anything they find in a search as evidence in court, they need a warrant. If they don't plan on filing charges against you the warrant is meaningless. The warrant does not give them the right to enter your home. It gives them the right to use what they find as evidence against you. They can enter your home any time they want to.

I don't think that is the way the law was meant to be interpreted. But they have tanks and machine guns now. So...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Anyafaj

A police officer I was speaking to about the recent events involving police and their actions told me that police can kick your door in, handcuff you in your own home, search and seize anything they want, and take you to jail for up to 72 hours, then let you go and there is nothing you can do about it.

I asked how that was possible with the fourth amendment. He said it was simple. If they intend to use anything they find in a search as evidence in court, they need a warrant. If they don't plan on filing charges against you the warrant is meaningless. The warrant does not give them the right to enter your home. It gives them the right to use what they find as evidence against you. They can enter your home any time they want to.

I don't think that is the way the law was meant to be interpreted. But they have tanks and machine guns now. So...

I once heard a judge say this in open court. He was even more... well this kid was all like he can't do this and that and the judge said, he has a gun, are you going to stop him?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Anyafaj

A police officer I was speaking to about the recent events involving police and their actions told me that police can kick your door in, handcuff you in your own home, search and seize anything they want, and take you to jail for up to 72 hours, then let you go and there is nothing you can do about it.

I asked how that was possible with the fourth amendment. He said it was simple. If they intend to use anything they find in a search as evidence in court, they need a warrant. If they don't plan on filing charges against you the warrant is meaningless. The warrant does not give them the right to enter your home. It gives them the right to use what they find as evidence against you. They can enter your home any time they want to.

I don't think that is the way the law was meant to be interpreted. But they have tanks and machine guns now. So...

Shameful and scary, isn't it? And the sad thing is, we continue to let them behave in such a manner.

To clear up some confusion that it seems has crept in:

The judge dismissed the claim of 3rd amendment violation and allowed other claims to move forward.

This isn't over, as the claims of both 1st and 4th amendment violations were allowed to progress.

So all the screaming and ranting is a bit premature, as all the judge has done so far is rule that the 3rd amendment violation is not valid, but the other two are valid.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
To clear up some confusion that it seems has crept in:

The judge dismissed the claim of 3rd amendment violation and allowed other claims to move forward.

This isn't over, as the claims of both 1st and 4th amendment violations were allowed to progress.

So all the screaming and ranting is a bit premature, as all the judge has done so far is rule that the 3rd amendment violation is not valid, but the other two are valid.

I must have misinterpreted then. Thank you for clearing that up. Psych, ethics and biology were more my forte. I will admit I have a hard time interpreting the law. I appreciate your help here.

a reply to: Anyafaj

No problem. The journalist waited until the very last paragraph to mention it, making it almost an aside to the issue.

From what I can tell, the judge simply ruled the 3rd amendment doesn't apply in this case, but both the 1st and 4th, along with a number of state and federal law violations, were all allowed to move ahead.

I think these folks have a pretty strong case for them. I think their attorney probably just included the 3rd amendment to try and add some more meat to the suit. Still, they have a good case I think.

You can help me out with biology next time I get hung up on something

a reply to: alienjuggalo

I agree with your wisdom. I too learned in my old age it's better to avoid trouble and swallow your pride and withhold any stupid comments I might feel motivated to make. It's certainly preferable to the trouble they can make for you should they feel like it.