From my neck of the woods...3rd Amendment lawsuit.

S

sigcurious

New member
This one is a bit unusual given the grounds of the lawsuit. According to the court document and the article the family is suing for forced occupation of their home(s), among other things. It is difficult to determine from the article/document whether some sort of imminent circumstances law would apply here, to validate the forced removal from and occupation of their homes. There was no local news coverage that I know of that might provide more details as to the situation(whatever the issue was with the neighbor they were after) that caused this action.

Court Document

Article/Summary
 
I am intrigued to see how this case plays out. I'm normally good at playing devil's advocate, but I just have no idea how this will play out positively for the City.

I suspect a discrete out of court settlement will be reached within a few months, possibly within 30 days.
 
I've always thought 3A applied only to the quartering of soldiers, and I'm sure that's the tack the defense will use against that particular claim - but the 4th and 14th claims seem to be more than amply founded, if the article is reasonably accurate.

It's difficult to imagine what the officers were "thinking" in this case other than perhaps they were sharing a delusion that the time was 1936, the place was Nazi Germany, and they were SA/Gestapo. I mean...seriously.
 
The 3rd Amendment has rarely been seen as part of a lawsuit, but was incorporated by the 2nd Circuit in 1982
Click to expand...
Wow. Thanks for the link. I was unaware that the 3A had ever been part of litigation.

If ever it would have been invoked, I would have expected it after government contractors evicted folks from their homes during the hurricane Katrina debacle.

In this case, the defense would probably point out that the 3A refers to soldiers. Whether that applies to the police (which weren't an organized body at the time of the founding) will be for the court to decide.
 
From the officer's report -- game, set, and match on liability:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the 3A claim is going to work but its not necessary to establish liability. But, there is an argument that the police of today might be considered "troops" within the meaning of the 3A because it was adopted in reaction to the British quartering troops to enforce law against the local citizenry. I'm going to post in a separate thread about that.

At least one or two of the officers should be criminally charged, IMO.
 
csmsss said:
I've always thought 3A applied only to the quartering of soldiers, and I'm sure that's the tack the defense will use against that particular claim - but the 4th and 14th claims seem to be more than amply founded, if the article is reasonably accurate.

It's difficult to imagine what the officers were "thinking" in this case other than perhaps they were sharing a delusion that the time was 1936, the place was Nazi Germany, and they were SA/Gestapo. I mean...seriously.
Click to expand...
I agree with csmsss, I don't see this as a 3rd Amendment case at all. This was the police, not the army. I can see a lot of other avenues the case could (and perhaps should) go, such as unreasonable search and seizure, conspiracy, deprivation of rights under color of law, but ... not 3rd Amendment.

What does the 3rd Amendment say?

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.
Click to expand...
Sadly, this guy will probably lose his suit because his lawyer can't read plain English. No soldiers, no "quartering" ==> fail.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, this guy will probably lose his suit because his lawyer can't read plain English.
Click to expand...
Did you read the suit or article? The 3A claim was only one of several. He might not prevail on this particular claim but, IMO, will win the suit if the defendants are stupid enough not to settle.
 
I skimmed the article, but the title of the thread and the opening post portray it as a 3rd Amendment lawsuit.

I don't think it is, and I think the attorney is an idiot for even raising it.
 
AB, while I share your skepticism, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. If, "shall not be infringed" can mean "well you can have 10 rd magazines and not scary visual features etc etc", it doesn't seem so hard to imagine police as being equivalent to the military in this case, or quartering to mean the forced usage/occupation of one's residence.

I didn't mean to imply that the 3rd amendment is the only grounds on which this suit rested. Merely, the most interesting/unusual portion of the claim.
 
The 3A claim seems like a stretch (not so much police->soldiers but rather quartering), but a 4A claim seems like a no-brainer.

Is there any risk to making claims which the court finds to be incorrect, or is there merit to throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it?
 
The case was filed electronically on Sunday, June 30th and was assigned a case number on Monday. The Docket is here (downloaded via PACER), but is currently not listed on Justia.

From the complaint, here are the claims for relief:

1st claim: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights violations under color of law).
2nd claim: Assault.
3rd claim: Battery.
4th claim: False Arrest and Imprisonment.
5th claim: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
6th claim: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
7th claim: Civil Conspiracy (to deprive plaintiffs of civil rights under color of law).
8th claim: Defamation (causing the neighborhood to think the plaintiffs were criminals).
9th claim: Abuse of process (arrest and detention for purposes of intimidation)..
10th claim: Malicious Prosecution (charges were dismissed in court with a finding of prejudice against the prosecution).
11th claim: Respondeat Superior (holding the 2 cities culpable for the actions of the officers and PD's).
12th claim: Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision, and Training (again, holding the 2 cities responsible).

Paragraph 1 of the complaint alleges violations of the 3rd, 4th and 14th amendments. This is the only direct reference to the 3A, but the indirect reference is in the first claim for relief.

The 3A violation will be interesting, as I can see a mechanism for this. The Court however, may not agree. Considering that the charges were thrown out by the criminal court, there is substantial reason to believe a very large monetary settlement by everyone involved will be forthcoming.
 
Aquila Blanca said:
I agree with csmsss, I don't see this as a 3rd Amendment case at all. This was the police, not the army. I can see a lot of other avenues the case could (and perhaps should) go, such as unreasonable search and seizure, conspiracy, deprivation of rights under color of law, but ... not 3rd Amendment.

What does the 3rd Amendment say?

Quote: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.

Sadly, this guy will probably lose his suit because his lawyer can't read plain English. No soldiers, no "quartering" ==> fail.
Click to expand...


Current jurisprudence would disagree with you strongly.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

but the doctrine of "Incorporation" has applied that amendment against the states. Does that mean what it should mean, in plain English? In other words, does it mean that the state legislatures shall not..."?

Nope. It means that Principals can't say prayers. It means schools can not display the 10 Commandments. It means crosses can't be displayed on public property.

This one is no different. It will be found to apply to police officers. No doubt.

(I furiously disagree with "Incorporation" and particularly with the current tortured application thereof, but it is the political reality. (Yes, political.))
 
I agree with csmsss, I don't see this as a 3rd Amendment case at all. This was the police, not the army.
Click to expand...

That text right there is a SERIOUS legal and historical mistake.

Two mistakes, actually.

First is that you're assuming we even had such a critter as a "policeman" circa 1792 (when the Bill of Rights took effect). We did not.

You are also forgetting that the entire concept of "Posse Comitatus" comes from the post-Civil-War period. So in 1792 the military, including local militias or regular army, could be pressed into what we would call "police duty" (bordering at times on SWAT-level stuff).

So - is there an equivalency between the cops of 2013 and the military of 1792?

You betcha.
 
LEO's are wearing BDU's now and look more like soldiers than ever. They no longer resemble the police officers I knew in my neighborhood as a kid.
 
Is there any risk to making claims which the court finds to be incorrect, or is there merit to throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it?
Click to expand...
Its not unusual for some theories of liability to be tossed out by the court and, so long as not frivolous, there's usually no harm. However, if the plaintiff is successful on a civil rights claim(s), he or she may have reasonable attorney fees awarded, but only for successful claims. So expending a lot of time and energy on a weak theory makes little economic sense when there are other, stronger theories of relief. A frivolous claim can possibly lead to sanctions.

Keep in mind that lawsuits are not always about what makes economic sense. Perhaps this plaintiff thinks it is vitally important to make a 3A claim in order to clarify the law even though it will be a tougher case to make.
 
Wow. All that drama over a domestic violence investigation? What do they do if they locate a robbery suspect, call in an air strike on the neighborhood?

The arrogance of power is disgusting.
 
Question for the legal types on here: Are (some/all) government entities considered "Corporations"?

Why? (in queue with 3A and domestic police comments)

Washington State constitution, Article 1 Section 24, phrase #2.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
 
Considering it seems that the cops helped themselves to foodstuffs from the fridge.... They quatered themselves rather than just spending a couple hours peering out the windows...

Personally, I would be quickly telling them to pound sand and find a different location to use as a vantage point... If I wish to take part in an investigation, I could let them know...

A simple "Sorry guys but I am not currently comfortable leaving nor allowing ya'll in my home... Have a nice day..."

While not soldiers, the police forces of today are afforded more power than the constables of yore...

They are dressed as soldiers dress and carry many of the same weapons and tools and probably wouldn't treat my home and privacy as I choose to require of visitors to my home...

NO WAY!!! Shoot me with hot paintballs if you wish...
Brent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top