Yes, we still need Third Amendment

Those who consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” subject to continual reinterpretation as society changes, like to point to the Third Amendment as proof the founding document is too dated to be read literally. “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 reads.

After all, precious few of us wake in the middle of the night, worried that Marines might kick down our door, raid the refrigerator and crash in the guest bedroom for a few days.

But the long-dissed and easily forgotten Third Amendment — sandwiched between far more famous and frequently invoked amendments — exists for two critical reasons: to further clarify an absolute right to privacy in our own homes and to place firm limits on the powers of government.

A federal lawsuit filed last week in Las Vegas shows exactly why the Third Amendment was written, and why it’s still needed today.

Members of Henderson’s Mitchell family claim that the city’s police force took over their two homes without a warrant to perform surveillance on a nearby domestic dispute. The lawsuit alleges police broke into the homes when the Mitchells refused them entry, cursed Anthony Mitchell and shot him with a pepperball gun, shot the family dog with the same pepperball gun, and jailed Anthony Mitchell and Michael Mitchell on charges of obstructing police. While officers occupied the homes, they went through the Mitchells’ belongings and cabinets, and helped themselves to a water dispenser.

In claiming violations of the plaintiffs’ Third Amendment rights, the lawsuit names the city of Henderson, five Henderson officers, the city’s former police chief and North Las Vegas police, who assisted in the case. It could cost taxpayers a considerable amount of money.

The question of whether the Third Amendment applies to local police, who increasingly deploy military-style weapons and tactics, is worth exploring in a federal trial. Police have exceptional power over the public, but the Constitution sharply checks those powers. Police are obligated to abide by the limits of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and other amendments, so why not the Third as well?

If the allegations from the July 2011 incident are true, the Mitchells have plenty of claims beyond the Third Amendment violations. The criminal cases against Anthony and Michael Mitchell were dismissed — as was the case against the man police monitored from the Mitchells’ homes.

These are deeply troubling allegations that have made national news. They validate citizen concerns about the conduct of officers, who too often consider themselves above the law.

Yes, we most definitely still need the Third Amendment.