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

[speedrrracer]

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

How far can you stretch the definition of 'analog', and the various duties of the present-day police? There's the US Marshals, they've been around since 1789, and according to the wiki, they were involved in police-like activities such as manhunts.

2. Does present day law enforcement substantially occupy any role of founding era soldiers (i.e. to quell unrest, put down insurrections, etc.?

I'm not sure quelling unrest was ever a duty of founding-era soldiers, but if it was, then I think we can all agree on the quelling unrest part -- just look at the police in the aftermath of the GZ verdict. They're all over the place, and their bosses are on every radio station, calling for calm and warning that violent acts will be treated very seriously.

Again, the police --> soldiers conversion doesn't seem like a legal stretch, but quartering? I don't see how that requirement could ever be satisfied (from what little I've read of this case).

 

[maestro pistolero]

There may be other areas of overlap in function, purpose, and duty between founding era soldiers and modern LE . . . or not. I just think it's an interesting area of inquiry if one has a case attempting to resurrect the 3rd amendment.

We know federal troops cannot ordinarily be compelled to fire on US citizens, but I doubt that LE would be restricted from quelling an external threat such as a terrorist attack.

That LE is involved and integrated to whatever extent in homeland security, anti-terrorism etc., would seem relevant to any argument that the 3rd amendment applies to LE.

 

[JimDandy]

You folk might way to check out Post #24 where I did some of the research on this. Both a little on soldiers vs police, as well as recent case history. There has been at least one, and probably at most 1 3A case.