King George’s Cops Take Over Nevada Homes For Investigation

0 Shares

A lawsuit filed in Nevada alleges that cops violated residents’ 3rd Amendment rights by demanding they be allowed to occupy two homes in order to conduct an investigation involving a neighbor’s residence.

According to Courthouse News Service, officers with the Henderson Police Department demanded that the residents allow them to use their homes in order to gain a “tactical advantage” over a suspect. When the residents refused the request, the officers arrested them and used the homes anyway.

According to the complaint, here’s what happened:

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a “tactical advantage” against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

But, cops don’t like being told “no”:

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. 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. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.

Addressing plaintiff as “asshole,” officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to ‘crawl’ toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple “pepperball” rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.

Mitchell was charged with obstructing an officer. His father faced the same charge after he attempted to leave a police command center when the officers also took over his home. The charges ultimately were dismissed with prejudice after the men spent nine hours in jail.

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

  • Vigilant

    “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.”

    It may come as a shock to you, Mr. Rolley, but local policemen are NOT soldiers. The word “soldiers” means the same thing today as it did when the 3rd Amendment was ratified.

    • DavidForward

      Unfortunately, many modern day cops believe themselves to be military — hence the militarized gear, training and tactics. The official line between where the military ends and “civilian” state enforcers begins is becoming very blurred and intentionally so.

      According to even more complete reports these “civilian soldiers” even helped themselves to the food and water of the home owners without asking.

      I would imagine the legal argument will be formed on the basis of an agent of the state, an enforcer of the state’s will, seized the homes under the color of law for the benefit and use of the state. Those agents used a private residence for their own comfort, use and food source without the permission of the owners — in fact in direct conflict with the owners wishes.

      • sootsme

        Forcible entry=burglary=huge felony. Acting falsely/illegally under color of authority opens all of them to personal liability to criminal and civil charges. And the beat goes on…

    • ctfrank

      At the time the 3rd Amendment was ratified, the soldiers also served as police.

      • Chester

        Actually, that is NOT true. There would be a city marshal or sheriff, even then, and he did NOT use military personnel to help him out.

        • ctfrank

          Thank you for the correction. I was thinking more under British rule.

    • vicki

      I bet if we looked at the words of the founders we would find that just like the meaning of the 2nd amendment the overall intent is to strictly limit government force.

    • Vis Fac

      So why do the police refer to the the common people as civilians? Police hold rank and insignias as the military, they act like the military have the same equipment (armored vehicles weapons hight vision IR vision and air support) as the military. Soooo if it looks like a duck waddles like a duck quacks like a duck then the reasonable conclusion is that it must be a duck.

      • Vigilant

        People are free to construe what they will. Courts must construe according to the law. And according to the law. local police forces are NOT soldiers.

    • independent thinker

      While you can make the argument that the police are not soldiers you can also make a very compelling argument that they are in fact the soldiers of the city and county. The feds have the Army, Navy, etc.etc. the cities, counties, and states have the various police that can be said to act as their soldiers. However, that is not the main point here. The main point is the Geheime Staatspolizei like tactics used by the officers to obtain use of the persons property and deny him the free use of that same property.

      • Vigilant

        I am fully aware of the main point, and I find the acts deplorable.

        MY point was simply that the 3rd Amendment, upon which the lawsuit is ostensibly based, is completely irrelevant to the case. The quartering of soldiers was a tactic used by the British before the Revolution, and the 3rd Amendment was a reaction to it. Quartering of soldiers meant that colonists were required to provide them room and board without compensation for varying length of times.

        You may indeed make a “very compelling argument that [police] are in fact the soldiers of the city and county,” an argument that might satisfy the more metaphorical perception of local law enforcement. But such an argument carries absolutely no weight when it comes to the meaning of “soldier” in Constitutional courts of law.

        The Constitution is clear with regard to what restrictions are placed on the Federal government. Your argument falls flat in consideration of two things: (1) the 3rd Amendment was devised to restrict the Feds, not the states, and (2) state and local law enforcement comes under the 10th Amendment, NOT the 3rd.

        P.S. The Gestapo was an organ of the NATIONAL, not local, government.

  • CWA

    And they wonder why people want to shoot them. They are not only bullies, they are idiots.

  • Rocket Doc

    Nothing but JACK-THUGS, and they should be shot as they entered!!!! THERE IS A WAR COMING RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY, AND RIVER CITY WILL LOSE!!!!!

    • catman

      Should cut their f nutsacks out the worthless pos

      • Mike Butler

        What makes you think they have any. That’s why they are jack-booted thugs.

  • Walt wenger

    Again — for public safety reasons, the police must be banned from possessing firearms, period! Police actions are responsible for approximately half the death by firearms in our country every year. The police must be disarmed!!!

  • JetFleet

    Soooo, exactly what tactical advantage did the Henderson, NV coppers get when they storm trooped their way into a neighboring house by battering the front door down to gain their tactical advantage over the occupants of the house they wanted to get their tactical advantage for? I know, they ate and had a party celebrating their victory over a defenseless home owner – they got bigger bellies and their heads got fatter and then they wobbled next door to take advantage of their advantage. What was that advantage again? They, the big tough coppers, should all be fired for being so completely devoid of any intelligence.

    • rivahmitch

      Should have shot the first one or two through the door. Unless and until the precedent is set that the government must fear the people more than the people fear the government, freedom is gone. Semper Fi!

      • Oldmonkey

        That actually happened over 10 years ago in San Diego. A wealthy resident stood his ground against what he thought was a gang, but turned out to be a Swat team. The assault meant to intimate him into willingly give property for a park backfired. He may have died, but took several Swat team members with him. His wife with financial resources exposed the conspiracy, and settled in 7 figures.

        • Toy Pupanbai

          Any details?

      • saltydog

        I agree with you rivahmitch. It probably will happen if a good law abiding citizen hears or sees that his or her door is being crashed down and home invasion in progress regardless whether a phone call was made in advance or not. One never knows if it be cops or thugs, if there is a difference, defending ones own home is or shouldnt be a crime. I personally wouldnt want to waite to find out before whom ever breaks the security of that door in en mass and esp if i feel that emminent harm to my wife,children or myself is at stake here.

      • saltydog

        I agree with you rivahmitch. It probably will happen if a good law abiding citizen hears or sees that his or her door is being crashed down and home invasion in progress regardless whether a phone call was made in advance or not. One never knows if it be cops or thugs, if there is a difference, defending ones own home is or shouldnt be a crime. I personally wouldnt want to waite to find out before whom ever breaks the security of that door in en mass and esp if i feel that emminent harm to my wife,children or myself is at stake here.

      • garygerke

        Rivamitch you are right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        These local police thugs need to be taught a lesson that will stand up in a court of law, shoot a few of these illegal gestapo storm troopers in the face!

        • Toy Pupanbai

          +Yes, put these dogs down but what about the owners?

      • Alan

        probably, but then they would have killed him and it would be ruled as justified. this country is in severe trouble as these thugish activities are becomingmore and more common. this is nothing more than a police sanctioned home invasion.

        • rivahmitch

          It is home invasion and without a warrant, it’s NOT, in any legal sense sanctioned. Perhaps you consider your “life so dear and peace so sweet” that you’re willing to tolerate the loss of any rights and freedoms to maintain them. Personally, I don’t. Those unwilling to kill and die for their rights and freedoms will surely lose them and deserve to. Semper Fi!

          • Alan

            You misunderstood my point. I completely agree with your points,and am not willing to give up freedom. My only point was he would be dead, and the gestapo would likly be cleared of wrong doing.

          • rivahmitch

            You misunderstand mine as well. Yes, he’d be dead and the gestapo would be officially sanctioned. Given the lawlessness of the actions (and others by the various minions of the government beast) it’s no longer what the legal result is. I’d suggest that the entire legal system is currently losing it’s credibility anyway as it should since the government itself is no longer bound by “the chains of the Constitution”. Please note that I said “Unless and until the precedent is set that the government must fear the
            people more than the people fear the government, freedom is gone.” One incident does not establish the necessary fear in the mindless beast. However, repeated incidents of its minions dying can have the necessary salutary effect “devoutly to be wished”.

          • Alan

            All very true. If the constitution isnt already dead, it is certainly on life support, and this administration is trying to finish it off.

    • Oldmonkey

      First they should be severally sued along with the city, and prosecuted criminally.

    • MargaretJacobson

      Who were they trying to get the advantage of anyway ?? Some 80 year old deaf and blind person ?? The commotion would give them away !!

  • Margaret Manzi

    Since the taxpayers pay police salaries, there should be a way to have those officers fired and more ethical ones take their place.

    • Vis Fac

      Good thought but where are you going to find an ethical LEO By definition Legally Entitled to Oppress means there are no ethics among police just the in your face I’m the law do as I command. Or else I’ll bust your head open.

      • Tony Martin

        25 years ago about 95 % of officers ware ethical and did a good job. Today the standards have been lowered in many police departments and many are devoid of any intelligence. The public gets what it demands. I don’t think Henderson Nevada will put up with the actions depicted in the story. Do not lower yourself by calling them all bad.

        • Alan

          That’s true Tony. But 25yrs ago they were still “Police Departments” and not the paramilitary outfits they’ve morphed into since. These days it’s become difficult to know who to fear more, the cops or the criminals. Personally I’d put my money on the cops. At least the criminals make no pretense of who they are.

        • MargaretJacobson

          There are both good and bad police!! Time will tell as the story unfolds !

  • Richard Gibbard

    The home owner should charge the cops rent for use of the property.

  • Miley

    Folks, these are the same tactics Hitler’s SA used against the Jews in Germany in the 1933-1935 time frame. Nothing but thugs with badges and guns. I am sure they deficated on the floors before they left – gotta show the home owner who is in control. Turds all!

  • rbrooks

    there are the same basic tactics that have been used in the war against drugs and organized crime.

    many of you supported the same tactics when they were used in a manner you approved of.

    what did you think the eventual out come would be.

    like the support for the infringements on the 2nd amendment. when you support infringements of any amendment, for any reason, you have effectively given up your rights as well.

    public servants should be treated as servants of the public.

  • rbrooks

    there are the same basic tactics that have been used in the war against drugs and organized crime.

    many of you supported the same tactics when they were used in a manner you approved of.

    what did you think the eventual out come would be.

    like the support for the infringements on the 2nd amendment. when you support infringements of any amendment, for any reason, you have effectively given up your rights as well.

    public servants should be treated as servants of the public.

  • Tony Martin

    As we have only one side of the story we can only comment on the version presented. Appears that the Officers violated a number of Federal and State laws. I will bet a few department regulations. However let us wait until a proper trial in a proper court before we pass judgment. The story as now presented is by the attorney for the family.

  • mathis1689

    Assuming that everything in this story is correct every cop involved should be made to pay Mitchell a fine-their salary for a year would be about right in my opinion-and then they should spend the next 10 years in prison at hard labor. When they’re released then they should be permanently banned from any job in law enforcement in any capacity whatsoever. Maybe that would impress some of these Gestapo wannabe’s that they’re not God Almighty.