The Third Amendment was created to protect your home from being quartered by soldiers without your consent. It has very rarely been a matter of debate or litigation, until now.
Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon ruled that the police are exempt from the 3rd Amendment with a case out of Henderson, Nevada after a family had their home broken into and seized by local law enforcement who stated they needed the home to gain a “tactical advantage” against suspected criminals in a neighboring house.
Police actually forced their way into this family’s home, pepper-balled the father and his dog and then incarcerated the man for a day.
MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE:
This simply doesn’t happen. The article is full of holes and only idiots believe it. And those of you $#%&!@*s threatening to shoot officers who enter your house illegally…you’re even dumber. 999/1000 times, if the police are entering your house without a warrant, they have legal justification to be there, or at the very least, are doing so under the Good Faith Exception. And if you shoot/kill an officer because you don’t understand the letter and application of laws and exceptions to certain rights, you’re either going to jail or die of lead poisoning. Police just don’t run around breaking into homes of law abiding citizens without cause.
People are just too dumb to decipher fact from fiction.
I understand that activist judges have modified perception of civil rights, however, “in good faith” is simply an excuse for law enforcement to circumventthe law. I assume by lead poisoning, you mean summary execution by police.
There is no “good faith” exception to entering a private residence. Police can lawfully enter ONLY for one of three reasons. First – with a warrant signed by a neutral magistrate (who is usually anything but) Second, while in direct and continuously observed felony persuit and third is exigent circumstances which is when the residence must be entered to save life. These officers did exactly what the article said they did. Do a little research.
The judge ruled that this is more of a 4th Amendment issue and not a 3rd Amendment issue
Are u kidding me? I’m not going back to quote the specific person. As an Adjunct Prof. In criminology authorities do not, again, do not have the legal right to hammer their way into a neighboring home in order to perform surveillance. Where are u getting ur info at? Wikileaks? Precedence has already been set to keep this from occurring again. The officer in charge must legally ask said home owner their intentions. This approach is SOP and well received considering the shock value in the past towards the children that had given the police advantage away by the way they initiated entry into a private residence. This scared the s*** out of the children giving alarm/notice to the criminal element. An early alarm warning. Strategic placement involving a homeowner next door allows children to let their guard down as opossed to getting the Hell scared out of them. This is an officers worst scenario as they lose the element of surprise.
No they won’t, the cons$#%&!@*ution say no required housing of troops/armed government officials, so this judge needs to go back to 8th grade and learn to read the bill of rights.
people who believe these stories are retards.
These thugs did enter a private residence without warrant or exigent circumstances. They decided the constitution could take a back seat for a few hours. The used unlawful force and effected an unlawful arrest. While the third amendment line of inquiry I believe was correctly thrown out, a civil action will not prevent this happening again anymore then civil action stop police misconduct in other cases. There are clear and blatant civil rights violations here. They agencies supervisors and officers should be prosecuted in a criminal action. The problem has become that police know they will fgace no real penalty no matter how egregiously they violate your constitutional rights. In fact most copos believe their job is to enforce they law at the expense of people rights. They only become concerened with rights when its their ass on the line. Otherwise rights are things to laugh at and find ways to get around. Day by day the police become more and more militarized. Will not be to long until crime s will be what they say and not what laws say.
READ THE 3rd!!!!!!!!!
Good for you! I don’t!
Great! We will go right to the Judges house first!
Liberal $#%&!@*ers posting this ?