Nevada cops sued over forced occupation of private homes

It’s been a few hundred years since the Third Amendment was written to keep King George from quartering British troops in American homes, but a lawsuit just filed in Nevada suggests it’s as relevant as ever.

The framers of the Constitution ratified the Third Amendment to  ensure citizens would never again have to accommodate soldiers,  but a few centuries later it’s become more-or-less an antiquated  law that’s rarely referenced in federal court. That changed  recently when a family from Henderson, Nevada accused the local  police department of constitutional violations after officers of  the law allegedly took residence in two neighborhood homes.

According to a legal filing first obtained by Courthouse News  Service, a handful of Henderson Police Department officers and  the city itself are being sued for an array of charges —   including Third Amendment violations — over an incident that  mirrors the making of the American Revolution.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say police officers demanded they be  allowed to occupy two homes owned by their clients on the city’s  Eveningside Avenue in 2011 in order to conduct an investigation  involving a neighbor’s residence. When the owners refused to  comply with the request, they were reportedly arrested for  obstruction and brought to jail.

Police were investigating an incident at 363 Eveningside Avenue  that July when Officer Christopher Worley called up the occupant  of a neighboring property, Anthony Mitchell, and said he’d need  to use his house in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ over the  neighbor’s residence. Mitchell reportedly made it clear that he  did not want to get involved in the probe and told Worley he  would not be able to offer assistance. According to the lawsuit,  Officer David Cawthorn, Sgt. Michael Waller and Worley all then  “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of  his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.”

“It was determined to move to 367 Eveningside 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,” the report determined.

Moments later, the officers “arrayed themselves in front of  plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s house and prepared to execute their  plan,” after which they “loudly commanded” they be let  inside. Seconds later, Mitchell’s door was knocked down with a  metal battering ram and the police entered his home.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers  aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities  at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor,” the suit  alleges.

As the police moved into the home, Mitchell was reportedly called  an “asshole” by the cops, ordered to crawl on the floor  and then shot several times with non-lethal ‘pepperball rounds’   from close range. He was then arrested for obstructing an officer  while the cops combed through his house without permission, but  not before they also opened fire at the plaintiff’s dog,  prompting it to howl “in fear and pain.”

At the same time, officers approached Anthony’s parents down the  block at 362 Eveningside and asked father Michael Mitchell if  he’d accompany them back to a local ‘command center’ to assist  with negotiating the surrender of the neighbor suspected of  domestic violence. When he got there, though, he became concerned  that the cops had tricked him into leaving so they could try to  gain access to yet another home. Michael Mitchell then tried to  head back home, but when he left the command center he was  arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of a cop car.

Attorney for the family say there was no reasonable grounds to  detain Michael Mitchell, nor probable cause to suspect him of  committing any crime. That didn’t keep officers from holding both  him and his son Anthony for nine hours, however, before they were  ultimately released after posting bond.

All criminal counts against the Mitchells were later dismissed  with prejudiced, but the family has now lobbed charges of their  own. Their attorney is asking for a trial by jury to hear the  case and ideally award his clients punitive damages for  violations of the Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments,  assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process,  malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.