[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

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.

We disagree.

I think there is virtually no case law. (Well one case involving the National Guard and actually housing them)

I think cops can seize and man a home in an exigent situation. In this case the question would be whether or not it existed.

So I guess we just have to wait for a court resolution huh?

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by lvoc

We disagree.

I think there is virtually no case law. (Well one case involving the National Guard and actually housing them)

I think cops can seize and man a home in an exigent situation. In this case the question would be whether or not it existed.

So I guess we just have to wait for a court resolution huh?

I really want this to go to court and not get settled.

[Kaiminani]

Originally Posted by lvoc

I think cops can seize and man a home in an exigent situation. In this case the question would be whether or not it existed.

I'm doing my best to follow the details here, so please correct anything that's wrong here.
The police's explanation for commandeering the house was that they needed it to gain a tactical advantage over the suspect. The police's explanation for arresting the owners of the house was that they thought the owners were giving information about police movements to the suspect.

Independently those two things are plausible, although the first is still questionable as to whether that was sufficient justification and the second is questionable given the neighborhood, it's not some gang-infested ghetto, looks very solidly middle-class to me. But letting all that pass, doesn't it seem like an enormous coincidence that the people living in the very same house the police wanted to occupy were also working against the police? Which seems more reasonable - that these same people where also in cahoots with the bad guy or that the police were simply looking for an excuse to to get access to the house?

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

I'm doing my best to follow the details here, so please correct anything that's wrong here.
The police's explanation for commandeering the house was that they needed it to gain a tactical advantage over the suspect. The police's explanation for arresting the owners of the house was that they thought the owners were giving information about police movements to the suspect.

Independently those two things are plausible, although the first is still questionable as to whether that was sufficient justification and the second is questionable given the neighborhood, it's not some gang-infested ghetto, looks very solidly middle-class to me. But letting all that pass, doesn't it seem like an enormous coincidence that the people living in the very same house the police wanted to occupy were also working against the police? Which seems more reasonable - that these same people where also in cahoots with the bad guy or that the police were simply looking for an excuse to to get access to the house?

Even if the Mitchell family aided a criminal, it does not give police carte blanche to use their house as a tactical vantage point. At the very least they should get a warrant. I doubt that was done however. If this goes to trial, they will lose. My guess is they will try to settle.

I've heard the other arguments and they're lackluster. Arguments like the 3rd amendment has not been incorporated by the courts or there's no case law for the 3rd amendment. Those are moot for different reasons or just untrue.

Nevada is very big on privacy laws which the 3rd amendment is how the right is interpreted when it comes to the state and the citizen.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

Even if the Mitchell family aided a criminal, it does not give police carte blanche to use their house as a tactical vantage point. At the very least they should get a warrant. I doubt that was done however. If this goes to trial, they will lose. My guess is they will try to settle.

I've heard the other arguments and they're lackluster. Arguments like the 3rd amendment has not been incorporated by the courts or there's no case law for the 3rd amendment. Those are moot for different reasons or just untrue.

Nevada is very big on privacy laws which the 3rd amendment is how the right is interpreted when it comes to the state and the citizen.

Again a third amendment suit is pretty much a cute thing but meaningless. And even the fourth amendment suit probably goes no where.

The Police will claim an emergency where they believed that the Mitchells were creating a danger to the police. And even if the Police lose that one there is no reasonable damages that the Mitchells can obtain....well perhaps they can get a busted door fixed.

I would be skeptical that they can even get their Attorney's fees if they were to win.

So nothing good is likely to come from this. They are not going to get a court order preventing warrant-less searches. That law is all well established.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Again a third amendment suit is pretty much a cute thing but meaningless. And even the fourth amendment suit probably goes no where.

The Police will claim an emergency where they believed that the Mitchells were creating a danger to the police. And even if the Police lose that one there is no reasonable damages that the Mitchells can obtain....well perhaps they can get a busted door fixed.

I would be skeptical that they can even get their Attorney's fees if they were to win.

So nothing good is likely to come from this. They are not going to get a court order preventing warrant-less searches. That law is all well established.

I don't think it's cute at all. I think that it's a good application of a violation of the 3rd amendment in today's America. If this isn't a 3rd amendment issue it's definitely a 4th. There's no stopping the plaintiff's attorney from claiming 3rd, 4th and 14th amendment violations and seeing what sticks.

The police will claim something ridiculous as an emergency. It is up to a judge to believe that asinine explanation. I doubt that story will fly if it goes to a jury. You can recover some major cash for civil rights violations. It doesn't have to be calculated damage such as a broken door.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

I don't think it's cute at all. I think that it's a good application of a violation of the 3rd amendment in today's America. If this isn't a 3rd amendment issue it's definitely a 4th. There's no stopping the plaintiff's attorney from claiming 3rd, 4th and 14th amendment violations and seeing what sticks.

The police will claim something ridiculous as an emergency. It is up to a judge to believe that asinine explanation. I doubt that story will fly if it goes to a jury. You can recover some major cash for civil rights violations. It doesn't have to be calculated damage such as a broken door.

I agree with lvoc on this one. There's the way it should be. And then there's reality.

The reality of this situation is that nothing will happen to the police. There will be no huge settlements. The plaintiffs will find their case dismissed by the court. I won't say "I'll eat my hat." But I will be absolutely astounded if that isn't how it plays out.

[BBMW]

^
Close but not quite. I see a low to mid five figure settlement. But not big money.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I agree with lvoc on this one. There's the way it should be. And then there's reality.

The reality of this situation is that nothing will happen to the police. There will be no huge settlements. The plaintiffs will find their case dismissed by the court. I won't say "I'll eat my hat." But I will be absolutely astounded if that isn't how it plays out.

I follow cases of civil rights violation closely. This will be settled at tax payers expense. The police officers involved will get a slap on the wrist and no formal apology will be issued.

[ScoopLV]

The articles written about this family makes them look like typical libertoonian whack-a-doodles. I'm still wagering on no settlement at all. But the only thing I'd be willing to wager on this is a beer.