Nevada police arrest a couple for refusing to allow the police to use their house to spy on a neighbor–is this a violation of the 3rd amendment?

 Many on the left like to claim that the Constitution is a living document which must change with the times. They like to use the words of Thomas Jefferson in their attempt to convince the right that this is the case by quoting words he wrote in a letter to James Madison that “I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it’s laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

  And in a sense they are right but what they either neglect to mention, or are ignorant of, is the fact that the Founders provided the proper means within the Constitution to alter the Founding Document if the people thought it was time for a change, and that measure is called the amendment process, not the judiciary, and that is where the left errs in their argument. The Constitution can be considered a living document only in the fact that the Founders created a means within which the document can be changed, the problem is the manner in which the left seeks to change the document.

  As part of the effort to turn the Constitution into a living document many on the left have tried to use the age of the document against itself by claiming that because the Constitution is over 200 years old there are parts of the Constitution that are no longer valid, relevant, or necessary in today’s world.

  As an example of this they like to site the 3rd amendment for that is by far, in my opinion, the easiest amendment to discount in today’s world.

  Because the 3rd amendment was written at a time when American subjects were forced to quarter British soldiers against their will so how can that possibly be relevant in today’s world? Surely the United States does not live in the fear of an invasion and so the American people do not have to worry about quartering soldiers against their will in a time of peace, which renders the 3rd amendment obsolete, right?

  Not so fast. A couple in Nevada is suing the city of Henderson for a violation of their 3rd amendment right because they were arrested simply for the fact that they refused to let local police use their house to spy on their neighbor.

Police officers contacted Anthony Mitchell on July 10, 2011, with a request to use his house as a lookout while investigating his neighbor. When Mitchell told police that he did not wish to be involved, the complaint alleges, police decided they would use the residence anyway.

According to Courthouse News Service, the police department decided that if Mitchell refused to leave or open the door, officers would force their way in and arrest him.

Mitchell claims this is exactly what happened. First officers “smashed open” Mitchell’s door with a “metal ram” after he did not immediately open it himself. He then “curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face,” as the police shot Mitchell and his dog — which the family claims did not attack the officers — several times with “pepperball” rounds.

Pepperball is a projectile containing chemical irritant pepper spray, which is released upon impact.

Afterward, Mitchell was arrested for “obstructing a police officer.”