[Exaday]

Originally Posted by lvoc

The suit made a featured position in this mornings RJ - Lead article on Nevada page.

The police were purportedly working a potential hostage situation involving a child. The RJ says the underlying issue was resolved by a prejudiced dismissal of all charges. So it sounds like the underlying incident was probably not real either.

Sounds to me like the cops ran into a set of libertarian types and squashed them.

Should be very interesting if it actually gets to court.

That's what they said to me when they did basically the same sort of thing to me. Only problem was, they never mentioned the supposed child. Why would they not ask me about something like that or even say something?

This is odd because the same sort of thing happened to me. Read back and I wrote about my experience earlier in the thread. The child excuse is an out I think. I never believe there ever was a child in my case.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by Onlyliveonce

More insults and avoid the issues. It is like you cannot help yourself.

The issue is that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Even in war time suspension of certain rights is highly immoral. I'm not even going to debate the suspension of those rights in a non emergency situation where there are alternatives that does not erode constitutional rights. You have a right to be safe in your home and police should have gotten an emergency warrant if the situation demanded it.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Exaday

That's what they said to me when they did basically the same sort of thing to me. Only problem was, they never mentioned the supposed child. Why would they not ask me about something like that or even say something?

This is odd because the same sort of thing happened to me. Read back and I wrote about my experience earlier in the thread. The child excuse is an out I think. I never believe there ever was a child in my case.

Actually the police get away with it. Partly because no one comes after them. My brother and a mess of friends got busted many years ago after an incident at a local school construction site. Whast happened was a set of older teens started up some construction equipment and messed up the construction site. The cops got therelate and the elder teens had gotten out of the way. So the cops arrested all the younger teens in the local candy store. No basis whatsoever. My father, who was not particularly fond of miscreant teenagers was offended and went after the powers that be in the PD.

They let everyone go and apologized and, practically, transferred the local beat cop involved.

And that is what is needed. You need the locals to charge in and make them fix it.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Actually the police get away with it. Partly because no one comes after them. My brother and a mess of friends got busted many years ago after an incident at a local school construction site. Whast happened was a set of older teens started up some construction equipment and messed up the construction site. The cops got therelate and the elder teens had gotten out of the way. So the cops arrested all the younger teens in the local candy store. No basis whatsoever. My father, who was not particularly fond of miscreant teenagers was offended and went after the powers that be in the PD.

They let everyone go and apologized and, practically, transferred the local beat cop involved.

And that is what is needed. You need the locals to charge in and make them fix it.

Give the guy a settlement and fire the cops. I'd be fine with that. The police union will never allow that to happen though.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

Give the guy a settlement and fire the cops. I'd be fine with that. The police union will never allow that to happen though.

Nor will the City of Henderson...

[lvoc]

It is actually getting a reasonably big play in the local papers.

Henderson police believed family was sharing their movements with suspect | Las Vegas Review-Journal

So the cops think the Mitchells were acting as scouts for the guy they were after. ONe was armed asnd wearing body armor.

Can't see the 3rd amendment ploy. If anything it might trigger 4th. The third would not be sensibly violated on a short term usage.

Waiting for the base story to come out. Sealed court records but someone will talk...

[ddrhazy]

If the cops believed that this family was relaying information to a suspect, that is aiding and abetting. It does not give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. The 3rd amendment has still been violated if these are the facts as we know them.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

If the cops believed that this family was relaying information to a suspect, that is aiding and abetting. It does not give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. The 3rd amendment has still been violated if these are the facts as we know them.

I do not believe there is any case law that supports a third amendment violation. Declaring the police to be military is one stretch. Having a short period of time creates another. i believe they will lose on both...

The cops will claim exigency. And that may very well prevail. And I suspect it gets into what the cops thought...not what really was.

[Onlyliveonce]

Originally Posted by lvoc

I do not believe there is any case law that supports a third amendment violation. Declaring the police to be military is one stretch. Having a short period of time creates another. i believe they will lose on both...

The cops will claim exigency. And that may very well prevail. And I suspect it gets into what the cops thought...not what really was.

This is a very accurate statement. I can tell you that the same applies when Police are in front of a Grand Jury testifying in regards to Police shootings. There was a case in NYC where a man was shot dead in his dimly lit doorway for reaching in his pocket and pulling out a WALLET, not a gun. 41 shots were fired by several Police. This case went to trial and they were acquitted due to the above statement I highlighted.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by lvoc

I do not believe there is any case law that supports a third amendment violation. Declaring the police to be military is one stretch. Having a short period of time creates another. i believe they will lose on both...

The cops will claim exigency. And that may very well prevail. And I suspect it gets into what the cops thought...not what really was.

First, Henderson PD's explanation is complete nonsense and is typical of a police agency grasping at straws to try and protect themselves from a civil rights violation.

Second, there is case law regarding the 3rd amendment. It's just not as common as 1st, 4th or 5th. If there wasn't, the Mitchell's attorney would not be pursuing it. The argument is there and if the PD's defense to the 3rd amendment violation is that "police are not military" then there is also an argument for that as well. Whether the PD prevail or not is not something anyone will know until things ramp up in court.

Third, exigency allows for the police to detain and arrest this family for aiding a criminal. It does not allow them to come and setup a SWAT location in their house. They should have arrested the Mitchells, not setup a SWAT launching point.