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:

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

released without prejudice?
Something is wrong with this story. I suspect there is more we're not being told in an attempt to prejudice the audience.
When was the last time you heard of a 3rd Amendment violation? There's a reason for it, it just doesn't happen.

You know, this raises some serious questions, like setting precedent of exigency.
Of course the Bill of Rights forbids occupation, but what if courts do what they've always done, legislate from the bench and completely end up gutting the Constitution.

If you hear more on this, update us, this is a fascinating story.

This site has the same story.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

Quote from: Yawn on July 06, 2013, 03:01:49 PM
This site has the same story.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

Yeah, they all link back to that particular story, and it's why I am cautious in giving it credence.
The only link to the truth is through a paypal site for the court documents that the courthouse news is selling.
Just doesn't sound right.

https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=KtQf3mBIMIuXdd8uaMjBaweLi6IX4mEXD63KNIQPtv43e593hJcZF4Ir8jK&dispatch=50a222a57771920b6a3d7b606239e4d529b525e0b7e69bf0224adecfb0124e9b61f737ba21b081988da7a3c03e3ee25661350b6a36dba24a

The one thing that stood out in the story was the claim that his fathers house was needed as well "a few doors down" Not two doors down, which would put it directly on the other side of the house in question, instead puts it another house down from that, which leads me to believe it was the plaintiffs being investigated, which should have a search warrant on file, which leads me to believe the Dept. screwed up the search warrant and in the process violated their 3rd Amendment rights by not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's..
Something attorneys look for to get their clients off.

Too much was neglected in the story, lets hope we hear more on it.

What many now don't understand, is in the time in which the Constitution was written, all over Europe - including Great Britain - soldiers often were the police. One of the reasons Colonial anger rose over British troops being quartered on the colonials, but those troops often acted as the police to enforce British edicts. This led to anger, confrontations, and incidents like the Boston Massacre. The Colonials saw a standing army and the police as one. And of course this feeds into another current fear, the militarization of the police. when the police have armored vehicles, helicopters, military style weapons, dress in military style clothing, and receive military style training and use military style tactics; how in fact do the differ from a standing army? It seems the military has gotten around Posse Comitatus, by - with their willing cooperation - co-opting our nation's police forces. 

That's how I see them now. They are either looking for excuses to steal money for the "state" (traffic cops), or semi-military looking out for the interests of the State and not simply "keeping the peace" serving the citizens.

Here's the complaint documents:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/henderson.pdf

And what the local are saying:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/elsewhere/2013/jul/06/henderson-man-sues-city-and-police-saying-third-am/allcomments/#axzz2YS6XfdLf

It doesn't sound like the Henderson cops are very well liked.

Quote from: kramarat on July 08, 2013, 04:31:13 AM
Here's the complaint documents:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/henderson.pdf

And what the local are saying:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/elsewhere/2013/jul/06/henderson-man-sues-city-and-police-saying-third-am/allcomments/#axzz2YS6XfdLf

It doesn't sound like the Henderson cops are very well liked.

And still, it's only the words of the complainant that we are getting.
And yes, Hawthorne police seem to make the news a lot, they make the LA Pd look good.

Quote from: Solar on July 08, 2013, 04:53:56 AM
And still, it's only the words of the complainant that we are getting.
And yes, Hawthorne police seem to make the news a lot, they make the LA Pd look good.

Now that it's resulted in a lawsuit, I doubt we will be hearing from the police Dept. They were probably hoping that dropping the charges would do the trick. Not happening.

I'd think that it would be difficult to justify their actions.

I hope the people of that town aren't holding their breath, waiting for Holder to come and defend the constitution.

PS- This kind of pokes holes in the argument that, "If You're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

Quote from: kramarat on July 08, 2013, 04:59:10 AM
Now that it's resulted in a lawsuit, I doubt we will be hearing from the police Dept. They were probably hoping that dropping the charges would do the trick. Not happening.

I'd think that it would be difficult to justify their actions.

I hope the people of that town aren't holding their breath, waiting for Holder to come and defend the constitution.

I believe there is soo much more to the story that we're not hearing, all by design, in hopes of the city settling out of court.
They know the city can't comment publicly till the case is over, so they are at a distinct disadvantage where the plaintiff gets the upper hand in the court of public opinion.
This is all part of a plan by his attorneys and I'd say it's working quite well. Expect to hear of a settlement soon and court documents to be sealed.

Quote from: Solar on July 08, 2013, 05:13:17 AM
I believe there is soo much more to the story that we're not hearing, all by design, in hopes of the city settling out of court.
They know the city can't comment publicly till the case is over, so they are at a distinct disadvantage where the plaintiff gets the upper hand in the court of public opinion.
This is all part of a plan by his attorneys and I'd say it's working quite well. Expect to hear of a settlement soon and court documents to be sealed.

Ah yes! The attorney's best friend...the out of court settlement. 1/3 of the awarded money, without lifting a finger.

That would take care of the civil aspect of it. It's too bad that we have a DOJ that is an arm of a criminal organization; based on the allegations, there should be a trial in federal court that deals specifically with the constitutional violations of a citizens rights. Won't happen.

Cops lie as a way of life. I was always taught to obey and listen to an officer but as I got older and met a few during my daily life i have learned never trust a law enforcement officer.
I have seen a cop lie on a stand for a lousy ticket so anything goes with them.

Quote from: Solar on July 06, 2013, 02:45:41 PM
released without prejudice?
Something is wrong with this story. I suspect there is more we're not being told in an attempt to prejudice the audience.
When was the last time you heard of a 3rd Amendment violation? There's a reason for it, it just doesn't happen.

Solar not only that, but the third amendment is not applicable to the police, it applies to the quartering of soldiers, or the military.

The OP's would at best be a fourth amendment violation.