Remember that article bout the Nevada cops that kicked some people
out of their homes so they could 'gain a tactical advantage' over some
criminals in a neighboring house (July 2011).
Turns out the SC has ruled.
Well, the Third Amendment claim has been disallowed. Wrongly, in my
most emphatically not a lawyer opinion, because the judge very narrowly
construes 'soldier' to only mean 'member of the armed forces' (and,
properly, recognizes that police are *not* military by that definition)
while, during the writing of the constitution there was basically no
police as we know them today - a good chunk of law enforcement (and most
of the worst abuses) were perpetrated by soldiers acting in a law
In any case, by saying that the Third does not apply, it leaves open
the door for 'takings' by local police forces in the name of supporting
law enforcement activities.
Personally, I think the judge should have erred on the side of
*greater* liberty and ruled that, even though its not explicitly spelled
out, people have the right to not have state agents commandeer their
stuff or labor to support state activities.
But that runs counter to accepted jurisprudence which is to decide as little as you can get away with.
And I suppose it causes problems for conscription (which should be
abolished anyway) and forcing people into posses (and *that* coercion
should be abolished anyway - if you can't get the people to voluntarily
help you enforce a law, then maybe you shouldn't have that law).
But I always did think the Third was a long shot. Some are talking
about how it should have been a 4th amendment claim - I think that's
even weaker. There's the cops trying to use evidence obtained while
possessing the residence - which didn't happen so this would have also
been dismissed, the only good issue here is whether or not a judge would
have the authority to write a warrant authorizing the possession. And I
think posse laws would (again, wrongly) allow this.
The best cause, IMO, would be a 5th amendment 'takings' cause. The
officers coercively took possession of the home for an indeterminate
(meaning they didn't know how long this would take - they ended up there
for 9 hours) time - the owners are due compensation for this.