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

The city council may be discussing this at a meeting soon. If it is confirmed to be on the calendar I will try and make it and report back.
 
hermannr said:
Question for the legal types on here: Are (some/all) government entities considered "Corporations"?...
Click to expand...
The short answer is "no."

For a longer answer: On rare occasions a governmental entity will form a corporation, which it will wholly own or own a controlling interest in. It will do so to perform certain special functions. That sort of thing is more common in other countries. Examples of corporations owned or controlled by the United States include Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and a number of others.

hermannr said:
....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.
Click to expand...
All that says is that provision of the State Constitution can't be read as authorizing certain persons or entities to do certain things. That doesn't mean that other laws don't authorize those person or entities to do those things.
 
Not a comment on this case but a "similar" thing happened at a place I lived shortly before I moved there. It was an old house split into four apts.

An officer was shot in the backyard while investigating a car break in. The police arrived in force and told one of the tenants on the bottom floor they were using his apartment as a headquarters while they searched/investigated. The guy renting the apartment told me they said it as a statement of fact rather than a request.

He told me within minutes his apt was filled with officers moving his furniture out of the way, using his phone (pre cellphone days), using his dishes to get drinks of water, etc. The police told him to stay somewhere else a few days. He also told me at the time he didn't have a problem with any of this and stayed with a friend until things calmed down.

This happened about thirty years ago and the relationship between citizens/police was different then.
 
I see the argument. And I can't say I disagree with this being a 3A violation. But I don't see any judge wanting to be the one that opens this door. Though we do need it thrown open after what happened in Boston.

When the 3A was written, the troops did the law enforcement. Bandits and brigands on the road were chased down by the militia. This is one of the very reasons we now have Posse Comitatus.

Additionally, we have pretty much the only case law on the subject in 724 F.2d 28: Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Hugh L. Carey, Governor of the State of New York, et al.,defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 724 F.2d 28
Argued Dec. 15, 1983.Decided Dec. 20, 1983

In that case during a corrections officer strike, New York mobilized their National Guard, and evicted striking corrections officers from government housing to make room for the National Guardsmen who were going to perform the correctional duties.

As a result, in this district- and persuasively to the rest- the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states, and National Guardsmen performing a law enforcement task were considered soldiers.

National Guardsmen under State Authority can and without looking into it too far from state to state do have arrest powers. Georgia § 38-2-307 - Power of National Guard members to effect an arrest

Given the early history of militia and troops in the Whiskey Rebellion, and various other early law enforcement tasks, the Posse Comitatus act trying to separate law enforcement, and military, the hybrid nature of the National Guard today and their still being "soldiers" in a state law enforcement capacity it's not that much of a logical stretch to compare a bunch of armed agents of the state in BDU's led by a sergeant as "soldiers".
 
Here is an article from the American Bar Association Journal that addresses some of the issues this thread is discussing.

In particular the article discusses the ramifications of the "militarization" of police forces, and their accountability (or lack thereof).

Personally, I'm actually as concerned or more about a police raid stemming from bad information as I am about some random burglar breaking in. More, because if I shoot in the former case the likelihood of my survival is almost nil, but I'm actually optimistic about my chances with the burglar. :rolleyes:
 
Conn Trooper said:
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22799...ndment-lawsuit
There is a lot more to this story.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, CT. How valid are police reports in a criminal or civil trial? Do they hold as much weight as, say, forensic evidence?

I ask because of this section from your link:
According to police reports obtained by FOX5 on Tuesday, both Michael and Anthony Mitchell had been in contact with the barricaded suspect on that day, alerting him to police activities.

The reports further indicate Anthony Mitchell refused orders from SWAT to vacate his house, instead putting on a ballistic vest and loading ammunition into a rifle magazine.
Click to expand...

If a "report" is just some policeman inputting his hunches / suspicions into a database so the next detective on the case can come up to speed on the previous detective's mindset, then I would think they're not worth much in a court, but if they're the same as sworn testimony they would have a lot more weight.
 
Police officers put all kinds of interesting things in their reports. Sometimes those interesting things vanish when the officer is directly questioned under oath (whether in a deposition or court testimony).

It's highly unlikely that a police report alone would be entered into evidence and no testimony from the officers involved would be taken to bolster/refute it.
 
speedrrracer said:
...If a "report" is just some policeman inputting his hunches / suspicions into a database so the next detective on the case can come up to speed on the previous detective's mindset, then I would think they're not worth much in a court, but if they're the same as sworn testimony they would have a lot more weight.
Click to expand...
First, a report is part of written documentation of who, what, when, where, and how. The purposes of writing reports are to (1) create a permanent record of what happened, what was seen and heard, what was done, etc., and all other material facts and details instead of leaving such to the vagaries of memory; and (2) make the information available and useful to others. A properly written report should clearly and complete document, without editorial comment, facts. It could also contain impressions, opinions and conclusions properly identified as such.

A police report will rarely be admissible as evidence in court. The officers involved will need to personally testify. When an officer is testifying, a report he wrote could be used to refresh his recollection (or to impugn his testimony). A report might also be used to show state of mind.

But a police report is hearsay and may only be used under the various exceptions to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible.
 
as I recall police report are written after the fact thus no admissible. A journal written as It happens is admissible. But that was some years ago and my memory could be faulty.
 
rwilson452 said:
...as I recall police report are written after the fact thus no admissible...
Click to expand...
Nope, that's not the reason.

rwilson452 said:
....A journal written as It happens is admissible....
Click to expand...
Nope. The journal would be hearsay and therefore admissible only under an exception to the hearsay rule -- just like the report.
 
Frank, if an officer is called to testify (say the one who wrote the report), and then went completely against what he wrote in his report, would he have committed perjury?
 
allaroundhunter said:
...if an officer is called to testify (say the one who wrote the report), and then went completely against what he wrote in his report, would he have committed perjury?...
Click to expand...
  1. There's really no way to answer that sort of a vague questions. The details matter.

  2. This is getting off topic, so this digression ends here.
 
Frank, I don't think it is off-topic.

I think allaroundhunter is suggesting that the police reports included the claims about the Mitchells as a CYA move against possible repercussions for police actions in the case.

I think he is asking what additional penalties might attach, should this prove to have been the case; and I think he is asking what, if any, standard of proof would be applied to the report beyond the testimony of the officer in court - considering the officer would be one of the defendants in a civil suit.
 
As others have posted, testimony counts. I have used my reports to refresh my memory, but my testimony is what counts. However, I swear to my reports when I sign them. The form we submit has an oath on the bottom that I am swearing to the accuracy and content of the report when I sign it.

I did not believe any part of this story from the very start. It is probably the most bizarre thing I have ever read. None of the complaint made any sense. Just very strange from start to finish. I will be very curious to see how this shakes out. Very odd.
 
MLeake said:
...I think allaroundhunter is suggesting that the police reports included the claims about the Mitchells as a CYA move against possible repercussions for police actions in the case.

I think he is asking what additional penalties might attach, should this prove to have been the case;...
Click to expand...
There is no basis for any such discussion other than assumption, supposition and guess work. So we're not going to go there.
 
Spats McGee wrote:

Wow. I know what the 3A is, but I can't recall ever hearing of another suit filed under it.

I have no good idea as to how this case will end, I suspect "settlement" with the payment of some amount of money in the offing.

Otherwise, re Spats's comment, there is a first time for everything. Al Norris had an interesting post on this matter too.
 
Last edited:
Some questions to ponder:

1. Was there any analog to the present day police force at the time of ratification?

2. Does present day law enforcement substantially occupy any role of founding era soldiers (i.e. to quell unrest, put down insurrections, etc.?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top