Speak Outs
Speak Out
Is it unconstitutional for police to occupy a home (and eat your food)?

September 25, 2013

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices Staff Writer
 
The Third Amendment could be considered the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights – it gets no respect. For more than 200 years, the Third Amendment has been invoked very few times; the Supreme Court often strikes down claims.

But that hasn’t stopped a Nevada man from suing his town’s police force, four police officers and other police agencies. He contends they violated his family’s Third Amendment rights when he refused to allow them to use his home during a neighborhood disturbance.

The Third Amendment states, “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.” The amendment was adopted in 1791 in response to the actions of British troops who barged into colonists’ homes and stayed for long periods.

In 2011, Anthony Mitchell of Henderson, Nev., refused to allow a SWAT team to enter his home during a police standoff with one of his neighbors. Phillip White Jr. had barricaded himself and a child inside his home and refused to come out.

According to the lawsuit, Henderson Police Officer Christopher Worley told Mitchell that police needed to “occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house.”

The police called Mitchell to request the use of his home, but when he refused, they went to the house and smashed down his door, pointing guns at Mitchell and cursing at him, the lawsuit said.

When the police entered Mitchell’s home, he dropped to the floor and covered his head, the lawsuit said. The officers pepper-sprayed him and his dog before removing him and occupying his house, the lawsuit said. Mitchell was charged with obstructing an officer.

The police also contacted Anthony Mitchell’s father, Michael, and told him to go to a command center they had established in the neighborhood. The police wanted Michael Mitchell, who also lives in the neighborhood, to try to talk White into surrendering, but he declined. When Michael Mitchell tried to leave, police arrested him and occupied his home, too.

The police say that they can commandeer any house or vehicle if necessary to end a possibly violent situation. It’s like in the movies, when the hero cop commandeers a cab to follow the crooks in a high-speed chase.

The Mitchells sued the Henderson Police Department, the North Las Vegas Police Department, and four police officers, arguing that their Third Amendment rights had been violated.

The Mitchells’ lawsuit hinges on one crucial claim: That the police can be considered “soldiers.” The Mitchells’ lawyer, Frank Cofer, said the police should be considered soldiers because of the military-style tactics that he said were used. “And after entering the houses, they drank water, ate food, enjoyed the air conditioning,” he said. “That struck me as quartering.”

Not everyone agrees with the Mitchells. John Yoo, a professor at the University of California at Berkley’s law school, argues that it will be very difficult for the Mitchells to claim that the police are soldiers and that therefore, he and his father are protected by the Third Amendment.

Yoo said he believes that the Mitchells should be given restitution based on violations of state and federal laws, but that the Third Amendment claim will likely be rejected in court.

What do you think?

Were the Mitchells’ Third Amendment rights violated? Should police be considered soldiers in cases like this? Do police have a right to enter a house without the owner’s consent in order to end a possibly violent incident? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
12/12/2013
Shoreline, WA
Jessica
Knox/Shorewood
Anthony Mitchell's third amendment was right since the police were acting like soldiers, for instance, they were strategizing and spying treating it as if they were battling an enemy, in this case, the neighboring house. There are other ways that the police could have handled the situation instead of taking over both Anthony, and his dad's house. They could have spied from outside like most other cops do. And the worse part of this is that they broke into their house when not given consent, which is no different from breaking and entering. So not only did they violate Mitchell's Third Amendment rights, but they broke the law as well, which is ironic since they are suppose to be enforcing the law.

12/12/2013
Shoreline, Washington
Jared
Knox/Shorewood
I believe that it is unconstitutional for police to occupy a home of a certain individual, since it violates the Third Amendment that states the act of quartering to not be allowed. Mitchell had the right to refuse to allow the police officers to come into his home. They violated his rights when they smashed his doors open, pepper-sprayed him and forced him out of his own home. Although the police officers said they needed to use Mitchell's home as a "tactical advantage", they ended up trying to live leisurely while eating his food, drinking his water, and enjoying his air conditioning. This demonstrates the act of quartering to be taken place.

12/4/2013
Charlottesville/Va
Aaliyah S
Bailey/Monticello High School
Were the Mitchells’ Third Amendment rights violated? Should police be considered soldiers in cases like this? Do police have a right to enter a house without the owner’s consent in order to end a possibly violent incident? I honestly agree with the Mitchell's. The police can not taker over a house they have no ownership over unless it was foreclosed or drugs were involved. The police had no right to storm into the Mitchells home without their permission or any warrants. The third amendment rights was violated. In this case the police should be considered soildiers because they are supposed to be protecting our country.

11/19/2013
Frisco, Texas
Elizabeth
Adams/CTE
I think that Mitchell's Third Amendment rights were definately violated. Even though the police were trying to arrest a criminal, if Mitchell did not want the police in his home, then they should be able to come into his home without a warrant. In regards to the Third Amendment, a citizen cannot be forced to house soldiers, which is what police officers are in our time. Police are soldiers for the government, but regardless of whether police officers are considered soldiers, police officers are not allowed into one's home without their consent or a warrant.

11/15/2013
Frisco, TX
Terrence
Adams/CTE
They was protected by the Third Amendment. A police officers is just like a soldier. So he did not have to the police into his home. Then they take it to a new level. With the pepper-sprayed.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Scott
Adams/CTE
Anthony Mitchell's 3rd and 8th Amendment rights were violated. Police officers (especially SWAT team officers) go through similar training and use weapons similarly to soldiers. They entered his house and ate his food! They said they needed a "tactical advantage", but how is Anthony Mitchell's food tactical or an advantage? Also, why was it necessary to pepper spray him and his dog? This is excessive force and is a very cruel and unusual punishment for simply refusing to allow them into his house (which, by their behaviour, was the correct decision as they didn't really need it). Also, why was it necessary to occupy his father's house? They were completely out of line and clearly violated the 3rd and 8th Amendment rights of Anthony Mitchell.

11/13/2013
Frisco / TX
Fadi
Adams / CTE
Mitchells' third amendment right was not violated because police officers cannot be considered soldiers. However, the actions of the police are in complete violation of his fourth amendment right. The fourth amendment protects "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." yet his house was unreasonably violated.

11/13/2013
Frisco/Texas
Tucker
Adams/CTE
Mitchells' third amendment rights were violated. The police used unnecessary force to use Mitchells' home as a "tactical vantage point". The third amendment states that there shall be no quartering of soldiers in time of peace. When Mitchell said no to the swat using his house as an advantage in a neighborhood standoff, the swat should of just left him alone and find another way.

11/13/2013
frisco, Texas
Depntae
Adams/CTE Center
So, the third amendment says that. "No Soilder shall, in time of peace quartered in any house without the consent of the owner. All though Mitchells third amendment was violated. i believe that the cops did the right thing by taking over his house. to provide them with a tactical advantage. I think the most important thing in this case was to make sure that the child came out safe, and in one piece. So yes the cops should have done everything nessacary yo free the kid. witch was taking over Mitchell's house. But they should not have eatin and drank his food/water. They should at least pay back the funds of the food and drinks.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Danna
Adams/CTE Center
Yes, his third amendment right s were violated. He has the right to deny police access to his home, just like soldiers. However, his forth amendment rights were violated o a greater extent. The police had no warrant or probable cause to enter his house. Also, the use of pepper spray and cursing is considered a violation to the eighth amendment. The police did not have a right to enter his house without his consent, whether it was to end a possibly violent incident or not.

11/13/2013
frisco,texas
wyatt
adams/ctecenter
Mitchells' Third Amendement rights were not violated because the police are just local/state law enforcers, they are not protecting the country as a whole like a soldier does. Police also do not have the right to barge into ones house under any circumstances, even though it was to protect the public.

11/13/2013
Frisco/TX
James
Adams/CTE Center
The Mitchell's rights were most assuredly violated. Although the description of the Third Amendment applies to soldiers, "soldier" in this case can be translated more closely to militiamen which the SWAT falls under. Although Yoo's claim that the team was not soldiers is true, that does not mean that the men cannot be categorized as militia. Not only is the Third Amendment in question, but also the Fourth. Anthony Mitchell was a citizen without any criminal offense or reasonable cause for search, but had his door broken down and unnecessary force used against him and his pet, another violation of property. The fact that the police were trying to use his house as a vessel to prevent further violent incident does not limit the fact that Mitchell's rights were violated repeatedly. This case is an example of the fact that all are susceptible to law encroachment. Even by those enforcing the laws.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Chase K
Adams/CTE Center
Without a doubt, Mitchell's third amendment right was violated by the Henderson Police Dept. The third amendment clearly states that no soldier shall be quartered in time of peace "nor in time of war." The SWAT team was reacting to a possibly violent situation (time of war), however this is no excuse to violate a innocent American's right. Mitchell's home is property that he owns, and uses to shelter and provide for his family. To have the Henderson Police disrespect not only his Constitutional right but also his human right to not be assaulted and unlawfully arrested is dumbfounding and inexcusable. The fact is Law Enforcement has restrictions put on them to prevent from tyrannical and unlawful behavior, and these officers violated those restrictions to the upmost degree. If Law Enforcement is allowed to commit such egregious acts under the justification of "the betterment of the people," this country will plunge into the very oppression and tyranny it fought against in its origin.

11/13/2013
Frisco,TX
Tamera
Adams/CTE Center
The Mitchells' Third Amendment rights were violated because not only did police officers enter the home without permission, but they also harassed both Mitchells' when they didn't comply to what police were asking of them. In cases like this police should be considered soldiers. When stopping a possibly violent incident police should use all the resources available to them, except, when such resources aren't willingly given to them. If a person isn't willing to help in such a situation, they shouldn't have to under their Third Amendment right to refuse entry when it is their property in question.

11/13/2013
11/13/2013
mason
Adams/ CTE Center
The third amendment states " 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". The Mitchell's third amendment was violated as the police forced there way into the house after they were denied the right to enter the Mitchell's house. Not only did they violate the Mitchell's right to quarter a soldier, which police can be considered soldiers do to the similar ideas of protection of the people, but they also enjoyed their food, water, and air conditioning. This makes it seem like rather than doing what they said they were going to do, which was to get a tactical advantage on the occupant of the neighboring house, they relaxed and enjoyed the luxuries of a home they forced their way into. This is clearly a direct violation of the third amendment.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Nisa
Adams/CTE Center
In this case I believe the Mitchells' rights were violated in accordance to the Third Amendment stating that "there shall be no qaurtering of soldiers in time of peace." I think the police should be considered soldiers in this case because they were working to better the nation in some way however, at the same time the don't have the right to enter a house without the owners consent and drink water and way food. It was Mitchells' constitutional right to deny the soldiers his home and that very right was violated.

11/13/2013
Frisco, TX
Banelly
Adams/CTE Center
I believe that Mitchell's third amendment right was violated because, in my opinion, the police force is not military personnel. Therefore they should not have any rights to try to occupy Mitchell's house for a tactical advantage. Furthermore, it was not necessary, by any means, for the police to use excessive force, while trying to enter the house as it was not constitutional in the first place. Not only did the police deny him his constitutional rights but used excessive force to do something unconstitutional.

11/13/2013
frisco, texas
jessica
Adams/ cte center
I believe that in Mitchel's defense, the police used excessive force and his third amendment rights had been violated. He had the constitutional right to refuse to let the soldiers (police) to occupy his home. There wasn't even any reasonable suspicion or probable cause, so what the police did was unconstitutional

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Aakash S.
Adams/CTE Center
The third amendment states that there shall be no quartering soldiers in time of peace. A police shooting can be classified as both a time in peace because the nation is not at war within the country, it can also be classified as a brief act of violence and for that I believe that if an incident like this occurs citizens within the area should allow swat or any other type of law enforcement to enter their home for a brief time in order to gain an advantage point over those that have opened fire on the officers.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Theresa
Adams
I think that the Police did not violate the Mitchells' Third amendment rights, and the Police should be considered soldiers in his case because yes in the third amendment it states that there shall be no quatering in time or peace...and that of war. War is yes a bigger and more violent when taken place but the public safety of their neighborhood should be just as important. And the police were acting on good faith when the asked to enter the Mitchells' home and were denied.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Chase D.
Adams/CTE Center
Mitchell's rights were violated in this case. He wasn't even a threat in this case. The police were worried about another neighbor and smashed in his door and pepper sprayed him. Although this could be argued that they needed this location for a tactical advantage they used unnecessary force on someone who was not resisting. When they entered his home they ate his food among other things. They forced there way into an innocent civilians home and ate his food. Although they are police officers not military they are a part of the government. Both the military and the police provide security for american citizens and therefor should be held to a similar standard.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Tx
Lawrence
Adams/CTE Center
Mitchell's third amendment right was violated. The third amendment states that " No soldier shall, in the time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of owner...". Mitchell did not have to let the SWAT team in because of this right. On top of the police breaking down his door, they used unnecessary violence to bring Mitchell out of his home. This is a unreasonable punishment, also violating Mitchell's eighth amendment right. Mitchell showed no resistance whatsoever to earn the punishments he had received. So, in the case of Anthony Mitchell, both his third and eighth amendment rights were violated.

11/13/2013
Frisco, TX
Malik
Adams/CTE center
i believe that the third amendment applies to this speak out. a police officer is applied under the "soldier" part of the third amendment and i understand that they aren't quartered in the home but they are ocuppying the home. And for them to eat you your food is unconstitutional and just wrong. there is no time of war and it isn't prescribed by law so they have no reason to over welcome their stay. they can stay in the home but the third amendment implies that the home owners don't have to provide for the soldiers.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Martin K.
Adams/ CTE Center
If what the Mitchells' say is true then I'd defiantly believe that their third amendment rights were defiantly violated, even though there is a difference between police and military. However, either way the police were abusing their authority and the police should be considered the same as soldiers in cases like these. In the end I believe what they were doing was not just and should be guilty.

11/13/2013
Frisco/Texas
Mi'Kala
Adams/CTE Center
I strongly believe that Mitchell's rights were violated. The police went into his home, without his consent. It isn't fair at all that they tried to use his home to gain a "tactical advantage." It isn't his responsibility to lend a hand and help out police officers catch one of his neighbors. The police officers also were very disrespectful by busting the door down of his home, cursing at him and spraying him, as well as his dog with pepper spray.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Heather
Adams/CTE Center
The Mitchells' third amendment was indeed violated. The third amendment directly states that no soldier shall occupy and be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner. The owner did not give consent and therefore is protected by the third amendment. The police officers did not have the right to use force when Mitchells denied consent. The police officers should be considered soldiers because just like soldiers they protect the rights and freedom of the common good, they are the soldiers of the contemporary era.

11/13/2013
Frisco, Texas
Colleen
Adams/CTE Center
The Mitchells' third amendment rights were violated, the second the police entered their home, and took advantage of the food, water, and air conditioning. I believe that the police DO qualify as soldiers at this time because of their military tactics. According to the third amendment, the soldiers (police) do not have the right to enter the house without the owner's consent.

11/12/2013
Frisco,texas
Leah
Adams/CTE Center
Mitchells' third amendment right, stating that there shall be no quartering of soldiers in time of peace, was in fact violated. The police used unnecessary violence; smashing down his door, pointing guns, and cursing, and using pepper spray, when there was no resistance,when Mitchell had a constitutional right to deny the police to occupy his home. the police had no probable cause to enter his house without a warrant or his content. therefore, they violated his third amendment constitutional right.

11/12/2013
Frisco/Texas
Jaala
Adams/CTE Center
I think that the Mitchells' Third Amendment rights had been violated because current day peace officers act with similar privileges and tactics as our soldiers. Originally Anthony Mitchell refused the police the ability to "occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house." when they called him on the phone and asked. However, after his refusal, the police smashed their way in and charging him with obstructing an officer. Then they even drank water, ate food, and enjoyed air conditioning at his expense. In this event the police acted in a completely unconstitutional manner.

11/12/2013
Frisco, Texas
Ashley
Ms. Adams
I feel that Mitchell's Third Amendment right was violated. Police I feel are considered soldiers cause they both help to make our country a better place. I don't think policemen can just chill out in someone's house without the owner's consent though...

11/12/2013
Frisco, TX
Alyssa Rodriguez
Adams/CTE Center
Although the U.S. Constitution does state that no citizen should be forced the quater soldiers in a time of peace, in this stituation with the Mitchell family and the Nevada police officers, the Constitutions third amendment is greatly questioned. I believe that as a United States citizen, I should not be forced to provide shelter, food and water to a soldier. But when needing to provide a place for safety purposes, the act of opening your doors to policemen is acceptable. In the Mitchell case, the fact that the policemen ate their food, drank their water and enjoyed their air, was a bit unnecessary and could have been done differently.

11/12/2013
Frisco, Texas
Amit
Adams/CTE
I believe that police officers shouldn't be allowed into one's house regardless of the situation. The third amendment protects us from having to provide for soldiers and other people who protect us by quartering them in our homes. Even in this situation where the SWAT team was attempting to end a police standoff that involved a man locking himself and a child inside a house. The police force may find using one's house as a way to get a tactical advantage over the "barricaded man", but it shouldn't require the homeowner to consent. The SWAT team overreacted in this case by pepper-spraying the homeowner and using his home. There was no warrant that allowed for the house to be taken over, and therefore was an unconstitutional seizure of property.

11/12/2013
Frisco/Texas
James
Adams/Liberty
I do not believe Anthony Mitchell's rights where violated. There was a imediate threat that could have resulted in the death of the officers. Because of the circumstances of the situation the police had the right to take shelter within Mr. Mitchell's home. police officers are also not considered a part of the military.

11/12/2013
Frisco/TX
Divya
Adams/CTE Center
The Mitchells' third amendment rights were in fact violated since the police entered the house without consent of the individual which completely infringes upon citizens' rights and goes against what the third amendment was supposed to do. As well as the fact that police officers simply cannot be considered soldiers especially since the officers did not give an actual warrant or exact validation as to why they are entering in Mitchells' property. Even with Mitchell's disapproval, the officers didn't permit Mitchell to voice his right to not have them barge in and take over, including consuming his food and drinking his water, which is ridiculous considering the fact that if they were on a professional level, they would not be using the resources of the individual's house since there is resources outside of the house that the police can access. So due to the facts, and the manner and behavior in which the police entered Mitchell's house, his third amendment right was violated.

11/12/2013
Frisco, Texas
Anna Green
Adams/CTE Center
When the lawsuit states that the officers, who are supposed to be protecting us from crime might I add, were occupying his house and eating his food without his consent, it is clearly a quartering offense or a violation of the 3rd Amendment. In addition, these officers had no right to enter his house without a warrant. Therefore, these police officers deserve the same punishment as a soldier who quarters would receive.

11/12/2013
Frisco/Texas
Brendan
Adams/CTE Center
I believe that the Mitchells' Third Amendment rights were violated. While the police could be argued to be soldiers due to the involvement of SWAT and certain tactics used, that really should not be the issue. In cases like these, the meaning and intent behind the Amendment must be considered even more than the literal wording. Police do not have the right to enter a house without the consent of the owner. While the Third Amendment may only specifically restrict soldiers from doing so, its real purpose was to prevent the government from quartering government representatives in one's house. This would include cops as well as soldiers. The fact that the incident was violent is largely irrelevant. The Third Amendment must be enforced in all situations. If it can be easily justified, it loses any and all power it may have. The excuse that the quartering was to end a violent incident could have easily applied to the quartered British soldiers, who were trying to discourage violence and end a rebellion, which is definitely a violent incident. No government sponsored party has the right to enter a house without the owner's consent or a valid warrant, and in no case may they be quartered there, even if they are trying to end a "possibly violent incident".

11/12/2013
Frisco, Texas
Patrick
Adams/CTE Center
In my opinion i considere police officers soldiers in situations like these. I do believe their rights were violated because if a person doesn't find the police officer's reason to occupy their house a safe reason then that person shouldn't have to comply. I do not believe the police do not have the right to enter a person's house without the consent of the home owners if there is a possible violant incident unless the person inside of the house they want to invade is in danger.

11/12/2013
Frisco, Texas
Easton
Adams, CTE Center
The Mitchell's Third Amendment Rights were violated. While the use of the Mitchell's house for a "tactical advantage" is reasonable due to the circumstances, their consumption of their food and water is itself a potential violation of the Mitchell's rights, as doing so is not required in any way to resolve the situation at hand, and therefore their occupation of the house can be reasonably likened to the forced quartering of soldiers.

11/12/2013
Frisco Texas
Jose
Adams/Frisco cte center
The police can use a citizens house with permission from said citizen but should police or law enforcement not be able to just break down a citizens door to their own home and pepper spray a citizen who drops to the ground and doesn't resist for refusing to allow police to use their own private property even if it is used to prevent or stop crime. police or soldiers doesn't matter back when constitution was wrote soldiers were common in towns and neighborhoods as police and law enforcement are today. the costituion should adapt and prevent police from being able to do what they did to Anthony Mitchell in Nevada.

11/12/2013
Frisco, Texas
Joy
Adams/CTE Center
I don't think that their third amendment right was violated, because I don't think that the police should have been considered soldiers. The term soldiers implies that this situation took place during a time of war or battle, which was not the case. I believe that the police should have the right to enter a house without the owners' consent if a life really is at stake or the situation is potentially violent, but they should do so in a peaceful manner and reach an agreement before resorting to violence. The police treated Mitchell poorly and roughly. The Mitchells are not protected under the third amendment, but they should have been treated better and with more respect, and the police should have also taken care not to break anything in their home (such as the door, which was an unnecessary action). It was definitely not the Mitchells' responsibility to provide the police with water or food, which they took, presumably, without asking.

11/12/2013
Frisco/TX
Duncan
Adams/CTE Center
Given the officers' use of military-like tactics and the offenses they committed, their actions would fall under the umbrella of the 3rd Amendment. In abusing their home without the owners' consent and consuming food from the home, they were acting in a similar vein to the precise actions of the British troops being quartered in the era of the Constitution.

10/7/2013
Irving/TX
Annabel
Bradley/Nimitz
In the Mirriam Webster dictionary, a soldier is defined to be a member of an army- a body of persons organized to advance a cause. This being said, it is indeed unconstitutional for police to occupy a home and eat one's food. It is because the police are members of an organization grouped to enforce the law and protect person's and their property that they can be considered soldiers. As soldiers, they not only invaded Mitchell's house even after he refused to let them do so, but enjoyed the luxuries that came with his house as well (such as air conditioning, eating his food, etc.). So, in this case, the Mitchells' Third Amendment rights were in fact violated.

10/4/2013
Irving, TX
Jesus Gonzalez
Bradley/Nimitz HS
I believe Mitchells' 3rd Amendment was violated for the reason that they went into his home and thus causing to break his right's.The police do not have the right to enter an owner's house without consent, but to end a possible violent incident they would need to have a warrant to enter his house.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
David W.
Bradley/Nimitz HS
Although the actions of the officers were not proper and illegal in another sense, Mitchells' third amendment was not violated considering the officers were not soldiers. The reasonable denial of the police occupying his house being ignored shouldn't be allowed and handled legally. Individuals are allowed to respectfully deny a search of their house without a warrant, therefore, people should be allowed to deny occupation of their home even in potentially violent incidents.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
Laura G
Bradley/Nimitz HS
The Mitchells' Third Amendment was not violated because police officers are not considered a part of the military but their rights were violated by the police breaking into their home. Although the police had requested permission to use their home as a tactical vantage point, the owners refused to let them in making it illegal for the police to enter. Personally I don't believe that police should be considered a part of the military. Yes, they have authority but do not have the same skills or authority as the military.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
Jose A.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Mitchells' third amendment rights were violated by the same people who are suppose to uphold the rights of the American people. Not only that, but after Anthony Mitchell refused to let the police officers enter they came in anyway smashing down the door and threatening by pointing a gun on his face. It doesn't end there, after Mitchell covered his head and dropped to the floor, the police followed through by pepper spraying him and his dog. Afterwards, they seemed to be adding insult to injury when they ate Mitchell's food right in front of him. I believe that the police do not have the right to enter a house without consent because it's a violation of privacy. Plus, there are always more ways to 'gain a tactical advantage'. In my opinion, the police abused their power to exercise their authority by a long shot, and should be brought to justice.

10/4/2013
Irving/Tx
Brian J.
Bradley/Nimitz
In times of peace, the police are not considered soldiers. They really only take on the title in times of war and Marshal law is invoked. Because the police were not considered "soldiers" in the situation, the Mitchells' rights were not truly violated. I believe the police had a right to enter the home without the owner's consent because of the life or death situation they were being faced with. As long as the Mitchells' were assured that any damages to their home were taken care of. The police did over step their boundaries however when they began to make themselves at home by eating the Mitchells' food. In the end, the police force had the right to enter the home because of the situation, but not make themselves at home like they did.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
Chadwick
Bradley/Nimitz
As police are not soldiers but the law enforcement in times of peace, the Mitchells’ third amendment right was not violated. The police, however, should not have barged in, treated the Mitchells like criminals, and eaten their food without consent. The situation could have been handled much more appropriately if the Mitchells had been assured any damage cause would be fixed and honestly if the Mitchells had just agreed to let the police occupy their home, this wouldn’t have occurred. The police do have the right to enter a house without the owner’s consent if in a specific situation they deem it necessary to occupy that position in order to control or take advantage in a situation, especially a violent situation. While the law doesn’t require you to relinquish your house to the authorities in such a situation, I feel such a hostage situation with a child involved should grants the police the right to commandeer your house as a tactical advantage point. That being said, the police need to respect the household and not just abuse their position as police officers to get back a citizen who is only exercising their right, even as frustrating as that can sometimes be.

10/3/2013
Irving/Texas
Scotty C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe his right's were violated, and that he should not have been forced to let anyone in his home. However, any good citizen should understand that if the police force needs to use a particular spot for a certain amount of time for a tactical advantage, so that they can take down a criminal, the spot, and in this case someones home, should be able to be used. If the owner of the house is really that persistent in not wanting his house occupied, the police should lay off the owner, but like I said in the sentence prior, a good citizen should allow his house to be accessible. In the end though, the owner of the house's right's were violated, and he has the right to sue.

10/3/2013
Irving/Texas
Teven
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, the MItchells' Third Amendment rights were violated. Through the Oxford Dictionary's definition of soldier, "One who serves in an army", and it's definition of army, "an Organized military force equipped for fighting on land", the police could be considered soldiers. Since Soldiers do not have the right to quartering or the right to enter Mr. Mitchell's home. Suspending of the Constitution, even to end potentially violent situations, should never occur.

10/3/2013
Irving/TX
Brandon
Bradley/Nimitz
Technically, the Mitchell's Third amendment rights were not violated due to the fact that the cops were not soldiers. However, in cases like this, I believe police should be considered soldiers because of the military-style tactics employed. These tactics consisted of pepper spraying Anthony Mitchell and his dog and eating the food in his home, which are violations to the Mitchell’s rights as a citizen. Although police should have a right to enter a house without the owner’s consent in order to end a possibly violent incident, the manner in which they do so must be more civil in order to protect the citizen’s rights.

10/3/2013
Irving/Tx
Pedro
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that to a certain extent that the Mitchell's Third Amendment rights were violated. While they're not exactly soldiers, the police did invade the home and "drank water, ate food, enjoyed the air conditioning" which the Mitchell's consider quartering. But according to the wording of the Third Amendment which says, "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" this only applies to actual soldiers and not the police force. But I think that some action or consequence needs to be taken about the behavior of the police in the Mitchell's claims (pepper-spraying, smashing down the door, pointing guns at Mitchell etc.) In cases like this, the police force should be considered soldiers if the swat team is involved. I think that police should have the right to enter a house without the owner's consent only to end a possibly violent incident.

10/2/2013
Irving/Texas
Lyndsey
Bradley/Nimitz
I think the Mitchells’ Third Amendment rights were definitely violated. The police said that they were trying to protect the neighborhood. Therefore, I feel as if the police should be considered soldiers in this situation because I feel like soldiers are supposed to protect America. The police have no right to go into someone’s house, especially without a warrant. The Mitchells’ told the police that they did not want them in their house, so the police had no right to go into their house.

10/2/2013
Irving, Texas
Jacob F
Bradley/Nimitz
In this incident, it appears that Mr. Mitchell's rights, as instituted by the Third Amendment, had not been violated by the police officers. Police are not necessarily soldiers, so in this interpretation, they did not, hypothetically, need the owner's permission. This did however appear to obstruct Mr. Mitchell's citizen rights as he was pepper-sprayed and thrown out of his own house. As a policeman, you are to protect the rights of citizens, not to endanger them by breaking their doors and pointing your guns yelling at them; especially when you are only there because of their neighbor. Without the owner's permission, it is highly immoral and unethical for police to force themselves into someone's house, eat their food and take advantage of all the resources provided by, without consent, the owner.

10/1/2013
Irving/Texas
Cyndel Solano
Bradley/Nimitz
According to the Third Amendment and its interpretation Mr.Mitchell’s third amendment was not violated.On the other hand his citizen rights were.The police were not breaking the amendment because they are not soldiers ,but the fact that they ate some of his food was unethical to say the least.They should of tried to talk and further explain the situation to Anthony and explained why they needed an advantage ,and how his cooperating would help with that.Not just break into his home when he is not directly involved in the situation at hand and force him to an uncomfortable position in the what should be the “comfort and privacy “of HIS home.

9/30/2013
Irving/TX
Edward H.
Bradley/Nimitz
Technically, Mitchells' third amendment rights were not violated; his house was trying to be used by police, not soldiers. Police shouldn't be considered as soldiers in these cases, but should be held accountable for their actions. Police do not have the right to use a citizens house for no circumstance whats so ever without the consent of the owner. The police were way out of line in everyway and should be charged not for 'breaking' the third amendment, but for barging in on a citizens house and occupying it without consent of owner or warrant.

9/27/2013
Irving/Tx
Alonzo
Bradley/Nimitz
These actions taken but the law not only broke the 3 amendment which prohibits any soldier to quarter someone's house but also violated Mitchell's rights. The officers didn't just destroy part of his property, they also disrespected him for no reason using foul language and pointing guns at him. Unnecessary force was used against a regular citizen trying to protect his own rights and his dog. If entrance to a home was denied by a American citizen, there should be no reason for anyone to trespass. As long as the crime is not being committed in Mitchell's house, officer should try some other way to end the violent incident.

9/27/2013
Irving/Texas
Roberto.S
Bradley/Nimitz H S
I feel that the man had the right to tell the police to not enter his home because they didn't have a warrant for a search. But, despite the current events, and even though the police asked for permission, I feel as though his right were violated.

9/27/2013
Watertown, Mass
Hagop M
Rimas/ Watertown High School
Not only did the police enter Anthony Mitchell's house without a warrant,they broke down his door, cursed at him and they also pepper-sprayed him and his dog. Either if your a soldier or a police office, the 3rd amendment clearly states that “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.” No one has the right to enter your house without consent or a warrant. Even though the Henderson Police Department has a great chance of winning this case, they should not have the right to pepper-spray Anthony Mitchell because he didn't oppose a threat to the police officers, he just told them that they can't enter his house which he thought he had the right to say.

9/27/2013
Watertown
Kavita M
Rimas
According to the third amendment, the police doesn't have any right to get into anyone's house, until the owner doesn't gives them permission to get in. They also cant get in someones' house, if they don't have any warrant, so the police did not have any right to get in someone's house like that and eat their food. They also used violence on the owner of the house, which they cannot do until they have any reason. Mitchell has a full right to stand up for something wrong that had happened to him.

9/27/2013
Watertown/ MA
Sam t
Mr.Rimas/Watertown High School
I think this is unfair because nobody had the right to search this mans house.there was no warrant. I think the police thought too much of themselves in there position to look through this mans house and violate his privacy.

9/27/2013
Watertown/ Ma
Joey K
Rimas/ Watertown High
I think that the Mitchells' third Amendment rights were violated and that the police shouldn't have entered their house without the owners consent. Even if there was a violent incident happening they still need the permission from the owner to enter their home. Lastly I think its awful that after the police charged this persons house then ate his food and drank his water.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Kaylee
Rimas/Watertown High School
I think that the police can be considered as a soldier because they serve and protect an area. The police do not have the right to enter a house without the owner's consent and they definitely don't have the right to take advantage of Mitchells by eating his food or drinking his water if Mitchell did not offer it to them.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Massachusetts
Adam
Rimas/ Watertown High school
In my opinion, I believe the Mitchells' Third Amendment rights were violated. The officers had no right to pepper-spray him when he said that they could not enter his home. Also, the officers could have used a different house instead of the Mitchells, so there was no need to smash down his door and enter his house. Michael Mitchell shouldn't have been arrested.

9/27/2013
Watertown/MA
Daniel D.
Rimas/Watertown High School
I would say that it is unconstitutional for the police to do that. The British soldiers at the time when the amendment was passed were acting as police officer, in that they were trying to enforce the laws laid down by the British. So in the same way that the British at the time were soldiers, so are the police officers. The legislative intent of this amendment seems to be for similar to this situation.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Massachusetts
Grace
Rimas/Watertown High School
The police had absolutely no right to go into this mans house. The police, in this case, took advantage of the man, his house, and their position as police officers. Mitchell had every right to deny them entry and shouldn't have been charged at all.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Shannon C.
Rimas
I agree with John Yoo. I feel like the court will make the argument that police offers are not soldiers therefore this accusation cannot be made. If the Mitchells' still wanted to sue the Police Departments they could try going about it in a different way. For example, they could say that the police officers entered their home without their consent and without a warrant. However, I don't know what the Mitchells' would be able to ask for in return for that.

9/27/2013
Watertown, MA
Santos C.
Rimas/watertown high
it is unconstitutional since the 3rd amendment says "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.". They can't just go in to a person's house.

9/27/2013
watertown ma
Jacqui
Rimas/ Watertown
Yes, they were. The police did not have a warrant to search his house. If the police don't have a warrant and someone denies them of their request, they can't just go into his some. In this case, the police were taking advantage of their jobs and their rights, thinking they can do whatever they want just because they are police officers.

9/27/2013
irving/ texas
Adrian
bradley/ nimitz
Yes, we cannot quarter soldiers, and are the police not merely soldiers of the law. We as hard working Americans have to work to buy the food that is in our fridges, to eat it is simply eating what we worked so hard for. It is unconstitutional and should not be allowed.

9/27/2013
Irving/TX
Yamilleth
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes they were. The police officers went inside this man's home without a warrant, attacked him, treated Mitchell and his father like criminals, and even ate and relaxed in his own home when their job was done. Instead of being seen as police forces that could protect us, they are making it harder for people to be able to trust officers, simply because some police officers beilive they can get away with anything because of the badge on their pocket. Even if the Henderson Police aren't seen as soldiers does that still give them the right to violate this mans home, hurt him and his dog, arrest his father, and who simply denied the police of their request? It's pretty ironic that the SWAT team asked Mitchell if they could enter his home, and when he denied them the right, they took away his rights. Might as well say, you have no right to say no, or at least gotten the Chief of Justice to explain to Mitchell that the blockade could authorize the police to raid his home. If the police only get minor charges, to me, it will show how our rights and freedom and slowly being taken away.

9/27/2013
Irving
Elizabeth C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that in Mitc,hel's case, the third amendment was indeed violated. The Third Amendment clearly states that " No soldier, 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" It is absurd that any police officer would attempt to try to get away with being quartered into somebody's home. Initially I believed that if a police officer needed to borrow a home to prevent any potential harm, then it was by all means necessary. However, they did manage to also drink their water, eat their food and enjoy their air conditioning... What's the police officers reasoning behind that? Given that, I believe that the officers did in fact violate the Third Amendment.

9/27/2013
Irving/TX
Reyanna
Bradley/Nimitz
Police should have to have a warrant to go into someones home. Mitchell had the right to say that he didn't want tho let them into his own and his right should not have been violated. The police should not be considered soldiers in this case because they had all the protection needed and didn't have to use his house. they should not get away with violating the mans rights just because they are a higher authority. If Mitchell would have refused to let the police in even though they had a warrant then the police would have had the right to barge in on him, but that is not the case.

9/26/2013
Irving/TX
Hailey
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the Mitchells' Third Amendment rights were violated. It is clearly written in the Third Amendment that "without consent of the owner", no soldier can be quartered in a house. It is not right for a police officer to treat others disrespectfully and just invade houses if they don’t have a legitimate reason or a warrant. Even though the Third Amendment says “soldiers”, I think in this situation it still applies. Mitchell didn’t grant the police permission to come into his house, but they invaded it anyways. The fact that they drank his water, ate his food, and just sat around makes it seem like they weren't using his house to gain a tactical advantage. I do not think the police had the right to invade Mitchells’ house or privacy like that. I believe that the police should be sued and that Mitchell should win the case.

9/26/2013
Irving/Tx
Marissa
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe the Mitchells' have been violated of their third amendment rights because I do feel that police should be counted as soldiers. I feel it was completely unnecessary for police to barge in on Mitchells. Though I'm not sure why the Mitchells' refused to let police in, the police didn't have a warrant before intruding into their house therefore the Mitchells' have every right in their case to sue.

9/26/2013
Irving/Tx
Miriam
Bradley/Nimitz
The Mitchells’ did not have their third amendment right violated because if the we put the terminology into modern day, the term soldiers would also include police. The constitution wasn’t made with our modern world in mind, but we can still apply it to our lives. Police should not have the right to enter someones house and impose themselves on the owners. The only circumstance in which it would be acceptable is if the had some type of court order. Also if they destroyed property, or created any damage whatsoever they should be held responsible.

9/26/2013
Irving/Tx
Hannah W.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the Mitchelle’s were violated of their Third Amendment right because of the fact that a police entered their home without the permission of the owner of the home. It just shows that the police don’t take into account that they don’t pay attention to the fact that they violated the third amendment right. If they did it in the right way and asked to enter the home in order to stop a violent act in the neighborhood, then who is to say that the owner would have respected the request and allowed them to come in. But the fact that after they took over the owners house they then went to the father of the owner and asked him, but then tried to arrest him for refusing.

9/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Leanna
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that Mitchells' Third Amendment was violated. The Third Amendment states that there is no quarter of soldiers, including police, without the owner's consent. Soldiers and police are the same thing in this situation. I think that police shouldn't be allowed to do this. It's violating a person's home, and that clearly violates the Third Amendment.

9/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Monica M. M.
Bradley/Nimitz
It’s obvious that the Mitchell's Third Amendments rights were violated. Where in the constitution or their handbooks does it state that an officer can barge in a home. If that power was given then why bother having officers protect us if we would be violated by them as well. The SWAT team needed a place to gain ‘tactical advantage’, that’s understandable. However the way it was gained was without a consent. The victim clearly wanted no part of the situation and wanted his home safe. His home is where his family, in which this case a dog, go about their day. It’s not an officers station. An officer's duty is to clear the situation and leave the scene once the task has been complete. What police department arrest an innocent man of no crime whatsoever and then uses his home, again with no consent. They are not soldiers let alone family to the Mitchell's. The department could have changed their tactical plans by simply asking another neighbor if possible. If it was not then why go through all that trouble when they could have just adjusted and stationed somewhere else.

9/25/2013
Irving/Texas
Imbri
Bradley/Nimitz
It is definitely unconstitutional for any representative of "the state" to barge into your house without permission. We cannot continue to pretend to live in a free society where police or other government officials can just seize your home, point guns at you, and pepper spray you just because something violent is happening. The actions of the police were the same as a home invading gang. They are equal men to the people and the badge on their chest does not make them any better. They violated this man's rights, harmed his dog, and deserve the same thing that a normal man breaking into your home armed would get; Imprisonment.

9/25/2013
Irving/Tx
Seth
Bradley/Nimitz
If they did not have a warrant then they cannot enter into your house and they shouldn't. I do think they have the right to enter someone’s house without their consent if its their house thats a possible threat. they should not have barged into their house like they were the suspect who was being violent.

9/25/2013
Irving/Tx
Seth
Bradley/Nimitz
If they did not have a warrant then they cannot enter into your house and they shouldn't. I do think they have the right to enter someone’s house without their consent if its their house thats a possible threat. they should not have barged into their house like they were the suspect who was being violent.

9/25/2013
Irving/Texas
Daniel I
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, Mitchell's Third amendment rights were violated. Since police were acting military like in a sense that they were trying to gain a "tactical advantage," in this case they should be counted as soldiers. Police do not have the right to enter someone's house without the owner's consent, This is why warrants exist. So that police need to acquire permission before they can enter the home of a citizen.

9/25/2013
Irving/TX
Kristiyan
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that Mitchell's Third Amendment was violated because Mitchell refused to let them use his home. Police and especially the SWAT team shoud not be considered soldiers in a situation like this because they are fully protected and powerful enough to stay outside and not hide in someone's house. Police should ask nicely to ask enter someone's house and use it as a place to hide out for a short period of time if that is the only way they can end a possible violent incident or crime.

9/25/2013
Irving/TX
Kristiyan
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that Mitchell's Third Amendment was violated because Mitchell refused to let them use his home. Police and especially the SWAT team shoud not be considered soldiers in a situation like this because they are fully protected and powerful enough to stay outside and not hide in someone's house. Police should ask nicely to ask enter someone's house and use it as a place to hide out for a short period of time if that is the only way they can end a possible violent incident or crime.

9/25/2013
Irving/TX
Aaron Garcia
Bradley/Nimitz
In regards to the first question, yes. Mitchells' rights, in my opinion, were violated. I mean, come on, dude. Going into a person's house is one thing, but eating their food and carelessly occcupying their space is another. Now, I'm not a cop, nor do I have any intention of becoming one in the future; despite this, I respect them and remain unbiased towards their actions (sometimes). So, regarding the second and third questions this article has provided, I am conflicted on how officers should be viewed. One part of me thinks that the police should have the right to enter a person's house, but another part of me hesitates to agree with it due to the chance their power could be taken advantage of (as in the case of the Mitchells). And, when comparing a police officer to a soldier, I suppose I do consider them to be equals----equals just set in different situations. But all in all, if an officer is considered to be a true person of the law, there should be no reason as to why the people would have to worry about them breaking into their houses----but when it does happen, we remember why the question was raised in the first place.

9/25/2013
Irving/TX
Sergio G.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe Mitchell's rights were violated by the way they acted as soon as they arrived. The only reason it would be under-minded would be that they were not considered soldiers, but in fact they were being quartered by how they arrive d and began to make them selves at home. Not only that, but in the point of action of the situation they would be in fact considered soldiers by the actions they are about to take to fight. Also I believe the officers have no right on invading citizens homes for their needs even in crisis situations.

9/25/2013
Watertown, MA
Kevin
Rimas
The police are not allowed to even enter your home without a warrent let alone go and eat all of your food. The only way i can think of that even happening is a state of emergancy and the cops need to hide out in houses

9/25/2013
Watertown Ma
Nick Soares
Rimas Watertown High school
Yes the third amendment right was violated because he did not have to let them go into his house. No they should not be able to eat the food in your house unless the house hold ask them if they want food.

9/25/2013
watertown ma
Nick G
rimas
yes its not right for the police to come in your home and take whatever they want or eat your food that is not right

9/25/2013
Irving/Texas
christian salaverria
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes I believe his third amendment rights where violated because he did not have to let them use his house. Yes they should because they are sometimes depending on the situation breaking the laws for things like this and sometimes it makes them look bad. No they do not have the right to use somebody's house with out there consent, so sometimes things like this happen and the police unfortunately make themselves look bad.

9/25/2013
Irving/Tx
Jordan Brewer
Bradley/Nimitz
The definition of a soldier is as follows: one who fights as a part of an organization. Now I don’t know about you but that sounds like a cop to me. Not just someone who serves in the armed forces. So if the Mitchell’s wanted to, in court, use the third amendment as resource to help them in court. When the police came into his house, as if he was a criminal, and drink his food without his consent wasn't just violating the constitution, but violating his right as a human.

Related News
Related Resources
Share