Judge rules Third Amendment does not apply to cops.

[mrsat_98]

deleted

 

[mrsat_98]

 

[echo1]

USA! USA! USA!

 

[CaptUSA]

Was the case dismissed with or without prejudice? If it was without, I would immediately bring it again. If it was dismissed with prejudice (which seems unlikely) then I'd immediately bring it to a Federal court.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

When was the last time a Judge actually ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Was the case dismissed with or without prejudice? If it was without, I would immediately bring it again. If it was dismissed with prejudice (which seems unlikely) then I'd immediately bring it to a Federal court.

If it's a Third Amendment argument, then it should have started in a Federal Court.

 

[Weston White]

It was heard in the federal circuit and appears to entirely favor the police's inappropriate actions, without prejudice:

III. CONCLUSION

In accord with the foregoing, I hereby ORDER:

1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. All official-capacity claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed.

3. All claims against Chief Chambers are dismissed without prejudice.

4. All claims against Chief Chronister are dismissed without prejudice.

5. All claims against HPD Officers Poiner, Feola, and Walls are dismissed without prejudice.

6. Qualified immunity is denied as to all named individual defendants.

7. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed without prejudice as to the individual police officers.

8. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed with prejudice as to Assistant City Attorney Reyes-Speer.

9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

10. The Eleventh Claim for Relief (§ 1985(3)) is dismissed without prejudice.

11. The Twelfth Claim for Relief (§ 1986) is dismissed without prejudice.

12. The Seventeenth Claim for Relief (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed without prejudice.

13. The Nineteenth Claim for Relief (abuse of process) is dismissed without prejudice.

14. The Twenty-First Claim for Relief (respondeat superior) is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Plaintiffs may assert respondeat superior as a theory of liability at the proper time and upon the proper factual basis.

15. The claims for punitive damages against the City of Henderson and the City of Las Vegas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice.

16. The claims for punitive damages for the state law claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It was heard in the federal circuit and appears to entirely favor the police's inappropriate actions, without prejudice:

9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

^%$# $#@# @#$% $$#@ #@#$

 

[Weston White]

Here is more on the Intolerance Act or Quartering Acts which were directly reflected within both the Second and Third Amendments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Acts

And just to note a few other points:

• The state militias would certainly fall under the confines of the Third Amendment.
• The court noted that quartering is not applicable, regardless, if the duration is less than 24-hours; however, the context of quartering, is the requirement to provide quarters, including food, personal property, etc., nothing about a duration is stated therein.
• It is the police themselves that consider themselves as being para-military, referring to citizens as civilians, and that award themselves regalia and other shiny baubles, along with militant titles.
• Regarding the Quartering Acts, British soldiers served the King in the capacity as local law enforcement personnel throughout the colonies--modern federal, state, municipal, and county law enforcement agencies are a more recent concept.

Original case from 2013: http://www.scribd.com/doc/151769636/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et-al-Complaint

 

[fisharmor]

When was the last time a Judge actually ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights?

The only reason at all to have judges say anything about the Bill of Rights, is to have them find ways around them.

Despite all appearances, individual people aren't stupid. They can read and comprehend one-sentence thoughts.
You only need a judge when you want to generate reams of text that show how that one sentence means the exact opposite of what it actually says.

 

[TheTexan]

This seems like something we should have at least voted on.

 

[qh4dotcom]

They've desecrated the rest of the bill of rights and conservatives haven't given a rip about anything but the 2nd. Why should the 3rd be special?

The third amendment is a joke and unnecessary because any violations of the third amendment are automatic violations of the fourth amendment.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This seems like something we should have at least voted on.

Silence, mundane.

Obey Harder.

That's all you need to know.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The third amendment is a joke and unnecessary because any violations of the third amendment are automatic violations of the fourth amendment.

Good thinking comrade.

And since there is no longer any such thing as the fourth amendment, we're good to go, amirite?

 

[phill4paul]

The only violation to any amendment in the Bill of Rights is that the people choose to treat them with irreverence. That is what the founders would truly weep over. Not what the government has become, but, rather what the people have allowed the government to become.

 

[euphemia]

So a Constitutional amendment intended to limit government doesn't so much?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So a Constitutional amendment intended to limit government doesn't so much?

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner

 

[jmdrake]

The third amendment is a joke and unnecessary because any violations of the third amendment are automatic violations of the fourth amendment.

Well technically someone can quarter in your house without searching it.

 

[KCIndy]

III. CONCLUSION

In accord with the foregoing, I hereby ORDER:

1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. All official-capacity claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed.

3. All claims against Chief Chambers are dismissed without prejudice.

4. All claims against Chief Chronister are dismissed without prejudice.

5. All claims against HPD Officers Poiner, Feola, and Walls are dismissed without prejudice.

6. Qualified immunity is denied as to all named individual defendants.

7. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed without prejudice as to the individual police officers.

8. The Ninth Claim for Relief (§ 1983, malicious prosecution) is dismissed with prejudice as to Assistant City Attorney Reyes-Speer.

9. The Seventh Claim for Relief (§ 1983, Third Amendment) is dismissed with prejudice.

10. The Eleventh Claim for Relief (§ 1985(3)) is dismissed without prejudice.

11. The Twelfth Claim for Relief (§ 1986) is dismissed without prejudice.

12. The Seventeenth Claim for Relief (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed without prejudice.

13. The Nineteenth Claim for Relief (abuse of process) is dismissed without prejudice.

14. The Twenty-First Claim for Relief (respondeat superior) is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Plaintiffs may assert respondeat superior as a theory of liability at the proper time and upon the proper factual basis.

15. The claims for punitive damages against the City of Henderson and the City of Las Vegas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice.

16. The claims for punitive damages for the state law claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

What an unbelievable train wreck of a decision. I feel sick.

 

[Origanalist]

The only violation to any amendment in the Bill of Rights is that the people choose to treat them with irreverence. That is what the founders would truly weep over. Not what the government has become, but, rather what the people have allowed the government to become.

George Washington would strongly disapprove....