- Quickdraw McLaw
- 8 Comments
- 152 Views
Quick quiz: What rights are you afforded by virtue of the Third Amendment?
If you answered the right to privacy in your home, you’re kinda on the right track. The Third 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.
According to CNS, the suit names five Henderson officers, the City of Henderson, its former police chief Jutta Chambers, as well as some North Las Vegas officers who got involved. The Mitchells’ attorneys are Frank Cofer and Benjamin Durham of Cofer, Gellar & Durham. No word on what all of the causes of action are, but clearly they’re asserting one for violation of the 3rd Amendment (which applies to the States through the 14th Amendment). The real question is whether the police using your home for SWAT activity is the same as the federal government quartering soldiers or national guardsmen.
What do you think?
…The right to party like a crazy person … without soldiers
Henderson PD AGAIN, run amok. Violatin' rights & shit. It never ends.
Interestingly, the 3rd Amendment (my favorite!) has never been applied to the states under the 14th amendment. The Supremes have incorporated the Bill of Rights piecemeal, and since there's never been a 3rd amendment case to analyze, they've never actually incorporated it.
Boyd is in the top 25 most likely to pull your scholarship:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/which_law_schools_were_most_likely_to_yank_merit-based_scholarships/
July 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM – I thought the same until I found Engblom v. Carey, which was applied to the New York State government. But it involved National Guard troops and a really far fetched interpretation of "home". I don't think that a 3rd Amendment argument,novel though it may be, is going to carry water here. Which I don't think on a practical level will be very cogent to the overall case since there are about one billion other legal and constitutional yardarms from which to hang the Henderson taxpayers by – they being the ones who will have to pay for this egregious abuse of a citizen's rights.
Jordan are you trying to play lawyer again? Why don't you finish up your GED, then a B.A. and then apply to law school.
I have not read the complaint yet and, like most here I suspect, I'm relying on the reported facts in various media outlets but I would have thought a 1983 suit coupled with a 4th unreasonable seizure (really? They just HAD to be there to see a DV in progress? And across the street? Was this a hostage situation? Come to think of it maybe I should go pull the complaint on Pacer and see what the cops were thinking) would be in order. Seems like a straight up "because we say so…did you miss the uniforms and guns which means we can do anything we want" type oppression more than a "Ye subject of the Crown thou shalt feed the Kings horsemen, without compensation, or have thy lands seized" sort of behavior. Perhaps I'll ask plaintiffs' counsel next time I see him why the 3rd was the preferred bludgeon in this case.
The Third is not the preferred bludgeon. The only place it is included is in the jurisdictional statement, where iy is included with other ways of reaching the federal level.