I was incorrect. No case has come before the US supreme court on Quartering. The case I was remembering was New Mexican case where the quartering issues were never addressed as part of the dismissal. So, the point was raised but the state court decline to consider the argument. The only federal case is district 2's Engblom v Carey. That case hinged on whether Engblom (as a resident of a dorm-like room within the prison) had sufficient control of the premise to be an "Owner". The ruling was maybe Engblom was an Owner maybe he was not. The case was remanded back to the district court so a trial court could decide the material fact of whether Engblom was or was not an Owner. The only state where quartering any agent of the state is expressly forbidden is Louisiana. The state constitution states: "No person shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner or lawful occupant." This would include all agents of the state (federal, state or local) as well as any other person quartered by government fiat. (such as any FEMA refuges quartered at the local private school gymnasium) It applies to fee simple owners and tenants. It covers both peace time and war. The only restriction would be the question: "Is a place of business a "House" for the purposes of the law?" Fourth amendment cases (secure in papers, person and house) would seem to provide the framework that a "House" is more than a residence for constitutional interpretation. So I think this means that a person desiring to provide a carnivore-free ISP should locate the server in Louisiana in a literal house you own or rent. But, even then you get to be the guy/gal who gets to litigate the first case. See the compressive article on quartering at: <http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/3rd.html> http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/3rd.html -----Original Message----- From: bgt [mailto:bgt@chrootlabs.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:45 PM To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Quartering soldiers On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:48, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
"But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI
comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your
place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of
the Third?"
The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government
knocks on one's door and says "Here is something you must put inside
your house."
For this to make sense, we have to interpret Soldier to mean not just agents of the armed forces (military), it has to mean law-enforcement as well. I can accept the idea of abstracting the Third beyond humans to software/hardware agents, etc... but I'm not so sure about the military vs. law enforcement distinction. Can anyone point me to some founder's writings that may help support the interpretation of Soldier to mean any agent of the government? Even if we did extend the Third to mean law-enforcement... since Congress has repeatedly ceded their authority to determine when the country was "in a time of war" to the Executive, and as such we are now in a perpetual time of war, any quartering has to be prescribed by law, rather than prohibited outright. For these reasons, I have to agree with Tim's earlier referenced post, to the effect of "the only solutions now available are Technology and Terrorism."
By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a
neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their
houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had
developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they
received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think
this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of
this. Maybe Lexis has one.)
If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a "black letter law"
case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is.
Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter
his troops.
I think someone in this case would have a much better argument for a Fourth amendment violation (unreasonable seizure of their home, albeit temporarily), though probably, today, still unsuccessful in a court. --bgt