Not too often you see a 3rd Amendment Case

[_EAllusion]

You don't often hear about lawsuits based on the Third Amendment, the one that says "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." That usually overlooked provision is cited in a federal lawsuit recently filed by Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell—an oddity for which we can thank the Henderson, Nevada, police department. The Mitchells, who live in separate houses near each other in the Las Vegas suburb, were forcibly evicted from their homes on July 10, 2011, by police officers responding to a domestic violence report involving one of their neighbors. Here is how it all started, according to the complaint:

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

The cops did not take no for an answer:

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.

Addressing plaintiff as "asshole," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.

The cops pepperballed Mitchell's dog for good measure, even though she was "cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door." They charged Mitchell with...wait for it..."obstructing an officer." His father, Michael, faced the same charge after he tried to leave a police command center to which he was lured under false pretenses while the police took over his house as well. The two men were jailed for nine hours before making bail, and the charges ultimately were dismissed with prejudice. The lawsuit argues that police filed the unjustified charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs." In addition to Third and Fourth Amendment violations tied to the warrantless occupation of their homes, the Mitchells say the police are guilty of assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

[_Darth J]

Wow.

[_ajax18]

Will anything happen to the police for conducting business this way or are they just going to take money from the taxpayer to pay off the plaintiff?

[_EAllusion]

Will anything happen to the police for conducting business this way or are they just going to take money from the taxpayer to pay off the plaintiff?

I read about police abuse stories daily and usually what happens is paid suspension for the police and a civil suit for the government. I just learned about this case, so I'm not sure what happened, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary if that's what happened.

[_ldsfaqs]

I thought about posting this also......

Ya, it's a blatant abuse of police authority. Reminds me also of that Costco shopper in Las Vegas who seems to have been shot wrongly by the police simply because he was open carrying and because of an over-zealous security guard.

I watch a lot of police abuse videos also. You guys should watch the ones on open carry and police abuse also.
I just watched one in which the cops in order to try and prevent a citizen from exercising his rights, tried to threaten him with arrest for "disturbing the peace" simply because people might call in reporting someone carrying a gun.

[_ldsfaqs]

Something I find interesting also is that those who think that this sort of thing is an "abuse" of authority on the liberal side have no problem with government abusing their authority and taking away peoples human and civil right to self defense, the peoples right to be free from tyranny of any form.

Infringing on a person is okay in one sense to "serve government/peoples interest" but not in another.

Of course, the idea of taking away weapons from the law abiding is serving the government/peoples interest is a fallacy in and of itself, in contrast to the government taking over a home temporarily to catch a bad guy, the later actually having reasonable justification even though still wrong, the former having no reasonable justification, because it's primarily the mentally and criminally challenged that actually commit nearly all gun crime.

[_krose]

Channeling faqs:

"There's a Third amendment? And a Fourth too? I thought they ended at Two!"

[_Doctor Steuss]

It seems that the Henderson PD has been having a lot of problems the last few years. I don't know if my limited experiences are at all representative of the department in general, but the vast majority of HPD officers I have encountered have been in their very early 20's. I wonder if it's a lack of experience in the majority of officers, or maybe Metro gets the majority of the "cream of the crop," and NLVPD and HPD get what's left over.