Is the third amendment under attack??

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

nope, but he has the same parasite attached to his ass

LMAO!

Is that why you are ignoring me in this thread? LOL.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

no, you aren't obligated to open the door for cops

sounds like a good idea if you live in Nv though

So you are now admitting the homeowner did nothing wrong and the cops unlawfully entered his home? Or do you even know what the hell you are arguing now?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by acp5762

No they don't. Besides from the information provided from this article we really don't know what crime they were wanting to investigate. Homeowners are not obligated to give the police consent to use their property for surveillance or pursuit of criminals such as commandeering a private citizen's vehicle.

Can you cite some proof for that?

I said that in an emergency they arguably have the right to enter your property.

There are already court cases where the police chased criminals onto private property, including INTO private houses, and were permitted to do so under the law. That is often called the "hot pursuit" doctrine.

The courts justify it due to exigent circumstances where the police have to act fast if lives are in danger.

The link provided doesn't give enough information, but if there was a hostage crisis in the neighbor's house next door, there may well have been exigent circumstances to justify entering the premises.

These decisions are highly dependent on the facts of each case. But a blanket statement that the police don't have the right to enter your home without a warrant is not correct.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

. . . . and the cops unlawfully entered his home?

which is only a fact!

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

. . . . Or do you even know what the hell you are arguing now?

no.... he does not.... which prompted my first reply.... a true believer in individual liberty, yeah.... that's CJ

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Can you cite some proof for that?

I said that in an emergency they arguably have the right to enter your property.

There are already court cases where the police chased criminals onto private property, including INTO private houses, and were permitted to do so under the law. That is often called the "hot pursuit" doctrine.

The courts justify it due to exigent circumstances where the police have to act fast if lives are in danger.

The link provided doesn't give enough information, but if there was a hostage crisis in the neighbor's house next door, there may well have been exigent circumstances to justify entering the premises.

These decisions are highly dependent on the facts of each case. But a blanket statement that the police don't have the right to enter your home without a warrant is not correct.

You are correct that the police can enter a home when they are in "hot pursuit". But that was not the case here. And as far as "emergencies" are concerned the law is not that clear. Just what constitutes an "emergency"? It will be interesting to see how this case progresses thru the court system.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Can you cite some proof for that?

I said that in an emergency they arguably have the right to enter your property.

There are already court cases where the police chased criminals onto private property, including INTO private houses, and were permitted to do so under the law. That is often called the "hot pursuit" doctrine.

The courts justify it due to exigent circumstances where the police have to act fast if lives are in danger.

The link provided doesn't give enough information, but if there was a hostage crisis in the neighbor's house next door, there may well have been exigent circumstances to justify entering the premises.

These decisions are highly dependent on the facts of each case. But a blanket statement that the police don't have the right to enter your home without a warrant is not correct.

Well your question is a little different from the original thread. What I think you're referring to is " Hot Pursuit" I'll give an example. A patrol officer is sent to an Armed Robbery of a store. When he arrives perp just left. Clerk tells officer that the perp pulled a revolver on him demanding money, clerk gives him $80.00 from register. Clerk describes perp as w/m 17 or 18 5'7" 130lbs wearing tan shorts and a gray T-Shirt that says Saints Football on it, he was riding a red ten speed bike and rode south bound on St Charles Street on the side of his store. So officer patrols south on St Charles in search of suspect and comes across a ten speed bike fitting the victim's description laying in the front yard of a house on St. Charles. This gives the Officer reason to believe the suspect would be inside, it affords him probable cause to enter that house without a warrant in pursuit of a Fleeing Felon based on the information given to him by the victim the store clerk. But the nature of this thread was can police use private property to conduct surveillance or an investigation on a neighbor and use a private citizen's property who is not involved in the investigation. The answer is no they can't. Doing so would be in violation of the third amendment. In my opinion I don't think this incident took place. Maybe Police Officers do some off the wall stuff at times, but this incident is really pushing it.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Well your question is a little different from the original thread. What I think you're referring to is " Hot Pursuit" I'll give an example. A patrol officer is sent to an Armed Robbery of a store. When he arrives perp just left. Clerk tells officer that the perp pulled a revolver on him demanding money, clerk gives him $80.00 from register. Clerk describes perp as w/m 17 or 18 5'7" 130lbs wearing tan shorts and a gray T-Shirt that says Saints Football on it, he was riding a red ten speed bike and rode south bound on St Charles Street on the side of his store. So officer patrols south on St Charles in search of suspect and comes across a ten speed bike fitting the victim's description laying in the front yard of a house on St. Charles. This gives the Officer reason to believe the suspect would be inside, it affords him probable cause to enter that house without a warrant in pursuit of a Fleeing Felon based on the information given to him by the victim the store clerk. But the nature of this thread was can police use private property to conduct surveillance or an investigation on a neighbor and use a private citizen's property who is not involved in the investigation. The answer is no they can't. Doing so would be in violation of the third amendment. In my opinion I don't think this incident took place. Maybe Police Officers do some off the wall stuff at times, but this incident is really pushing it.

We don't know what the situation was from the links that were posted. Like so many right wing websites posted by JD and COG, all of the facts are left out other than the ones that fit the anti-government positions.

I pointed that out above and used a lot of "if" scenarios.

When the cops said they needed to enter the premises for a "tactical advantage" against the neighbor, that sounds like a whole lot more than mere surveillance.

It sounds like a shootout.

So, while I agree that cannot set up camp in your house just to peek through your blinds at the neighbor, that does not mean the police cannot enter your premises if there is or is about to be a shootout because they are going to storm the neighbors house.

Again, we are short on details because the article doesn't provide any except what the plaintiff's lawsuit stated.

I would point out, though, that even if there was not a sufficient emergency to merit the police entering his house, there still isn't a third amendment violation. There were no "soldiers" (or other military) involved and they were not being quartered in the guy's house.

He can still sue them for a lot of other reasons, including trespass, false imprisonment, violation of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

But i don't see a Third Amendment violation.

This isn't the first time the police have illegally entered a premises. In the past, it was always a 4th Amendment violation, not a 3rd Amendment violation. I don't see any reason why this guy would be different.

[CJ7]

and at the end of the day, good, bad, right, or wrong, if the homeowner answered his door the cops couldn't have broke it down.

Period.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

and at the end of the day, good, bad, right, or wrong, if the homeowner answered his door the cops couldn't have broke it down.

Period.

Horseshit! The cops intended to occupy his home one way or the other. If the homeowner had answered his door and refused to give permission for them to come in, they would have arrested him and occupied the home anyway. As usual, you are stuck on stupid!

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

The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: '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.'"

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Horseshit! The cops intended to occupy his home one way or the other. If the homeowner had answered his door and refused to give permission for them to come in, they would have arrested him and occupied the home anyway. As usual, you are stuck on stupid!

remind everyone how the cops would have had an opportunity to break down a door that was open ..

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

remind everyone how the cops would have had an opportunity to break down a door that was open ..

Read my post again. I added a citation and I quoted from it what the cop's intentions were. The cops were going to occupy his home one way or another. This is the issue here. It made no difference if he answered his door or not. The cops intended to occupy his house. Period!

[CuteOldGuy]

CBJ7 will always take the side of the government against the citizen. Don't waste your time arguing with him. He's an "authority worshipper" and dyed-in-the-wool Obamaton.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

We don't know what the situation was from the links that were posted. Like so many right wing websites posted by JD and COG, all of the facts are left out other than the ones that fit the anti-government positions.

I pointed that out above and used a lot of "if" scenarios.

When the cops said they needed to enter the premises for a "tactical advantage" against the neighbor, that sounds like a whole lot more than mere surveillance.

It sounds like a shootout.

So, while I agree that cannot set up camp in your house just to peek through your blinds at the neighbor, that does not mean the police cannot enter your premises if there is or is about to be a shootout because they are going to storm the neighbors house.

Again, we are short on details because the article doesn't provide any except what the plaintiff's lawsuit stated.

I would point out, though, that even if there was not a sufficient emergency to merit the police entering his house, there still isn't a third amendment violation. There were no "soldiers" (or other military) involved and they were not being quartered in the guy's house.

He can still sue them for a lot of other reasons, including trespass, false imprisonment, violation of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

But i don't see a Third Amendment violation.

This isn't the first time the police have illegally entered a premises. In the past, it was always a 4th Amendment violation, not a 3rd Amendment violation. I don't see any reason why this guy would be different.

I wasn't under the impression the Police wanted to occupy Mitchell's house for possibility of a shootout but more for as a lookout. The Third Amendment strikes me strange because the Third Amendment refers to Military, Police don't fall under Military. I thought about your view as this maybe more of a Fourth Amendment violation that sounds better to me, but Mitchell wasn't a suspect in any criminal case either which doesn't entirely qualify it as a Fourth Amendment Violation. Apparently this incident actually happened. The Police want to cite Mitchell with Obstruction of Justice for not complying with Police to use his home to investigate a Domestic Violence case. I think that claim might be hard for the Henderson PD to pull off, cause Mitchell didn't actively and willingly by design hinder the police investigation. He just didn't want them in his house.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Read my post again. I added a citation and I quoted from it what the cop's intentions were. The cops were going to occupy his home one way or another. This is the issue here. It made no difference if he answered his door or not. The cops intended to occupy his house. Period!

read my post again

and at the end of the day, good, bad, right, or wrong, if the homeowner answered his door the cops couldn't have broke it down.

Period

what part of that very simple equation escapes you ?

had the homeowner opened the door the cops couldn't have broken the door down. When the cops told him they wanted in he could have refused, and shut the door ,,, THEN if the cops tore his door down and entered against his will he would be 100% within his rights to sue.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

CBJ7 will always take the side of the government against the citizen. Don't waste your time arguing with him. He's an "authority worshipper" and dyed-in-the-wool Obamaton.

and you're a traitor to your country ... stfu