When the Henderson police, in the hopes of using a house next door to a home where alleged domestic violence was being investigated, the family refused to allow their home to be used. In response, the police arrested them for the refusal. The family sued, using the Third Amendment in the Constitution, which is a part of the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.
The owner claims the police officers "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use."
"Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"
When at least five officers arrived at the house, banging forecefully on the door, and commanding the homeowner to open the door to his residence, the plaintiff immediately called his mother on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
The officers then smashed open the front door with a metal ram. They aimed their weapons at the Mr. Anthony Mitchell, shouting obscenities at him and ordering him to lie down on the floor. Fearful, the homeowner complied.
After curling up in a ball in fear, not responding to commands to shut off his phone, and crawl toward the officers, Mr. Mitchell was fired upon with multiple 'pepperball' rounds, and he was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range
The officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house (without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment) and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout
.
When Plaintiff Linda Mitchell was expected to open her door, she complied and opened the door to her home. When she told officers that they could not enter her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her, seizing her by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.
When Plaintiff Linda Mitchell was expected to open her door, she complied and opened the door to her home. When she told officers that they could not enter her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her, seizing her by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.
The Mitchells are seeking punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
One may argue that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government, and that argument would be correct. . . except that does not mean non-federal police can violate the text of that amendment - not because it applies to the States as determined by some judges, but because the right to be protected against soldiers quartering in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner is a fundamental right. In other words, it is your right, whether it is in ink, or not.
This occurrence in Henderson, Nevada is very telling. It reveals the attitude of some law enforcement, under the watch of President Obama. It reeks of "police-state," and reveals the arrogance of those that represent the government, and their willingness to ignore the fundamental rights of Americans. This is the kind of actions law enforcement is willing to take under the watch of a statist, when the leadership is progressive, and believes that big government is all-mighty, and as Chuck Klein once wrote, is there to "Control the States." (Final paragraph of the article)
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Police Commandeer Homes, Get Sued - Courthouse News Service
Obama's Fairness Doctrine - Time
2 comments:
Doug, being that the "Bill of Rights" are the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, doesn't that make them part of the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, paragraph 2) and applicable to all levels of government?
I know that many consider the "Bill of Rights" as separate from the US Constitution, but they're not. Once these amendments were ratified by the many States, they became PART OF the US Constitution.
No argument. Your are correct, except for the "all levels of government" thing. The first seven articles of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, unless it states otherwise (such as in the case of Article I, Section 10) were specifically written to apply to the federal government. Also, as do I, many of the founding fathers felt the Bill of Rights were not necessary, and would muddy the waters. Our rights are fundamental, and have no need to be in ink. And in the case of the Bill of Rights, which tells the government what it can't do, the first seven articles were designed to tell the federal government what it could do - to clarify, for example with the 2nd Amendment, telling the federal government hands off of our guns, was not necessary because no where in the first seven articles was the federal government given the authority to regulate guns in the first place.
Post a Comment