3rd Amendment (No Quartering Of Soldiers..) lawsuit

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems unlikely to be a constitutional issue, as the police are not soldiers, and they were not quartered. If anything it's a 4th amendment case. Police will just claim exigent circumstances.
 

Attachments

  • 151769636-Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et-al-Complaint.pdf
    143.3 KB · Views: 429
Seems unlikely to be a constitutional issue, as the police are not soldiers, and they were not quartered. If anything it's a 4th amendment case.

Nice try Mick but you know thats not a valid rebutal. The armed representatives of the government forcibly entered the citizens home and without the owners permission then took over said home and used it for government activities. It matters not how long the home is occupied only that it has been occcupied with the owners permisssion.

No its not a 4th issue because the police were not there to search and or seize anything within said poremises. Thats not to say they did not go thru the peopls stuff and or take something (we know some cops will do this ) only that its not a 4th issue.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
I think the thread title is a bit misleading. It's rather premature to make any conclusions before the case is finished.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have modified the thread title to "3rd Amendment (No Quartering Of Soldiers..) lawsuit", as there's no real debunking here.
 
They claim 3rd, 4th, and 14th (due process) in the lawsuit.

The 3rd is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
So again, they were not soldiers, and they were not quartered. It's frivolous addition to the suit.

1) I did not realize they were claiming the 4th and 14th violations so I concede on that point.

2) As for the term 'soldier', our police are no longer just police. Does the below look like police or soldiers?
http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_00...fnbspwatertown-massnbspas-they-search-for.jpg

3) The Federal government has Federalized a number of law enforcement officers in police departments throughout the country. Between that and #2 above the line between soldier and police officer has been blurred.

4) The DEBUNKED line in teh totle was sarcasm to make a point; I will leave it out next time since it 'confuses' some who are unable to distinguish its use.


Mick - Since the 3rd ammendemnt specifically mentions soldiers, does that mean its not a violation of teh 3rd if the CIA or FBI or any of the other ABC agencies of the Federal government were to quarter persons within someones ho9me without their permission? In other words, its not a violation for any representative of government other then a soldier, to be quartered in someones home?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think soldier in constitutional law has a fairly specific meaning which does not include police, only extending as far as the National Guard.

Mick - Since the 3rd ammendemnt specifically mentions soldiers, does that mean its not a violation of teh 3rd if the CIA or FBI or any of the other ABC agencies of the Federal government were to quarter persons within someones ho9me without their permission? In other words, its not a violation for any representative of government other then a soldier, to be quartered in someones home?

Correct. However it would violate other laws which have constitutional roots. The quartering provision only makes sense in the context of the time. It's more of historical interest than anything.

Detailed discussion and case law:
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/677/677.F2d.957.81-7769.732.html
 
Top