In a rare Constitutional Rights case, Nevada cops allegedly violate 3rd Amendment.

[Laize]

The third amendment is so obscure most people don't even remember it's a thing.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Las Vegas police officers have arrested a family for refusing to allow the police to use their home as a surveillance point in the investigation of a domestic violence case.

[Kraenen]

constitution is violated, what's new? I don't think there's anything we can do. Been going on like this for years yet they never get punished.

[Tradewind]

Weird all around. Not sure why someone wouldn't want to help in that situation though. If I found out my neighbors were into some household ass beatings, I'd let the cops in and put the kettle on.

[Laize]

Weird all around. Not sure why someone wouldn't want to help in that situation though. If I found out my neighbors were into some household ass beatings, I'd let the cops in and put the kettle on.

It doesn't matter why they wouldn't want to help. Maybe they have drugs in the house? Maybe they like their privacy.

Either way, you're not obligated to help.

[Whidbey]

The third amendment is so obscure most people don't even remember it's a thing.



Las Vegas police officers have arrested a family for refusing to allow the police to use their home as a surveillance point in the investigation of a domestic violence case.

The family are seeking charges for the violation.. but I doubt they will get it as the amendment is not about police but the military in times of war capturing someones home and using it as a base of operations without permission therebye evicting illegally the occupants. The british and the hessians did that a lot in the revolution. Seems they are really reaching on this one using that amendment. The other things sited in the article as violations I'll agree with.

[Flatspriest]

It's a good thing the police aren't soldiers then or the amendment would be violated. It's still a dick move by the police, but it is not a violation of the 3rd amendment.

[Tradewind]

It doesn't matter why they wouldn't want to help. Maybe they have drugs in the house? Maybe they like their privacy.

Either way, you're not obligated to help.

Well no shit, I'm just saying I would have.

[Very Tired]

The 3rd was used in an argument for abortion, I'd guess it could be used here. But really breaking the 3rd is something new, give them a medal.

[Strakha]

I guess the case will come down to whether or not law enforcement qualifies as military in peace times, which it will likely not and there will be 0 reward for these people and 0 punishment for the police.

[Deleted]

I would be very concerned that your Police are training and equipping themselves just like the Military, the lines are blurring a little.

[Zoranon]

3rd amendment or not, the police demand of gtfo of your house right now, or we will shoot you with pepper balls should be highly illegal on its own.

[Stir]

I would be very concerned that your Police are training and equipping themselves just like the Military, the lines are blurring a little.

This is pretty much what I thought... A police officer is not a soldier. And a good thing that is, too.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Other liberties may have been violated, but the third amendment most certainly states "No soldier". Unless it can be shown that when the amendment was being written and passed, those involved in the constitutional convention expressly meant any agent of the government when they write "soldier" a opposed to the typical meaning of a member of the military, then the third amendment should not be applied to anything but soldiers.

[Deleted]

This is pretty much what I thought... A police officer is not a soldier. And a good thing that is, too.

Indeed, shit like this is never a good sign.

[Spraxle]

The police by todays standards are basiclly an extension of the military. This has been going on for a while. RICH8472 is very right in his concerns and point. This family will get shit on just like everyone else who gets wrong by the police. Just remember, the governement (police, military, etc) aren't there to protect you, they are there to protect the interests of their bosses.

[Verain]

It's a good thing the police aren't soldiers then or the amendment would be violated. It's still a dick move by the police, but it is not a violation of the 3rd amendment.

I could make the case that they ARE soldiers. The police as we have them now didn't exist back then- the word could easily be construed to mean ANY group of government agents who are armed and can run around making demands. I think they have a case on the 3rd, but I think they'll have a stronger case elsewhere.

[kaze950]

It might not violate the actual text of the amendment, but it goes against the spirit and the right to privacy which can be inferred from it. Not saying it's a clear cut case...but they definitely have an argument. I don't like the idea that not allowing the police to enter your home when they have no warrant or any justification for doing so (relevant to the premises they are trying to enter) can lead to a charge.

[mizeri]

This is pretty much what I thought... A police officer is not a soldier. And a good thing that is, too.

the police usually has a lot of the firearms a soldier carry, like M4's M9's, sniper riffles, I don't think they have any full automatics.

[Deleted]

They aren't soldiers, therefore the amendment wasn't actually broken.

[Deleted]

the police usually has a lot of the firearms a soldier carry, like M4's M9's, sniper riffles, I don't think they have any full automatics.

An M4 IS fully automatic.