Originally Posted by Patchman
Militarization of the police. Surplussed military equipment. More LEOs have military background. Rank structure. LE wear uniforms, including combat styled boots. Use of military terminology. DHS getting delivery of 2.7 billion rounds of small arms ammo since January 1 of this year. Expanded/common use of blue coloured roof lights on police cars indicating merger of UN practices (traditionally, U.S. LE/first reponders only used red and white lights).
Probably many more indicia that I missed.
Way back in the late 80s and early 90s when I was studying criminal justice in college, we examined the paramilitary structure of police forces-- it is nothing new. However, I don't see that being a successful legal argument. You can argue anything but it needs to be a good argument if you wish to be successful in court.
We didn't discuss the 3rd Amendment very much in Criminal or Cnstitutional Law because it was written based upon the fact British Soldiers forced owners to quarter them and there were not any court cases that changed the way things are done.-- it is rarely challenged.
To me, they key word is Soldiers. Police are not Soldiers. The military falls under Title 10 of the US government. Local police do not, State police do not, the FBI does not, the DHS does not, and the DoS does not. They all have different stipulations. I mention that because I would think showing the distinction can be the counter argument. The amendment was written to address Soldiers and there are legal definitions of what a Soldier (military) is. The fact that the arresting officers have military style rank and/or weapons does not magically give them military authorities.
(I'm to going to touch the DHS or UN practices because they have nothing to do with this).