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.
Not much has occurred with this amendment, in fact, only one case did I find.
Quote:
Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982) was a U.S. court case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It is chiefly notable for being the only court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by activated National Guardsmen. At Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (and other facilities) striking employees were evicted from employee housing in order to house some of the National Guardsmen. Two of the evicted officers at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, subsequently filed suit against New York Governor Hugh L. Carey and various other state officials.
The decision, rendered on May 3, 1982, established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond home owners. The majority stated that the officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was protected under the Third Amendment. There was a minority dissent which stated the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and held that the special circumstances of residency on prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection. The case was remanded to district court where it was decided in the defendants' favor again, due to the principle that as agents of the state, the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity unless they were knowingly acting illegally. In the absence of previous precedents on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met.
|
I'm not sure why this was even brought forth because the property of the employee housing would seem like it was government property anyway.
regardless, this was obviously an amendment put in because of examples of the British Crown housing troops among the colonists pre-revolution and was something the founders wanted to prevent happening again.