Well, if they can do that, I guess it would be meaningless. Let us know when that time comes.
Still, the third amendment prohibits mandatory quartering (being forced to provide lodging), not searching, or even loitering. (Don't we have the 4th Amendment, for such cases? Don't we have standard common law for such cases?) From what I've read about the Henderson, NV case, the cops wanted to use the homes as some sort of observation post, or command center. If they were staying there overnight, or something, I could see how the third amendment might apply.
I have to agree. At the very least, they should be forced to pay rent for the facility, a sort of limited eminent domain. If there's going to be virtually continuous police presence there, and not in the direct performance of their duties at that location(IE crime scene investigation), at some point they're 'quartering' there even if they're not sleeping. Eating alone could trigger it.
I agree on the renaming thing, they're armed government agents, which there wasn't much besides the army back then.
I don't want to set any 'hard' rules, but if they're at the location to do their duty because that's the only place to do the duty - IE they're executing a search warrant, dusting for prints, tracking down all the bullet holes, casings, testing blood spills, etc... That's not being quartered there. They go back to the motel to sleep.
If they're evicting a family for their safety and placing a sniper in the home because their neighbor across the street has started a hostage situation, again, that's a combat situation, not a quartering.
It gets shady when they're forcing the family to host a listening post or 'command center' when they're not considering an imminent active breach, but conducting an investigation 'under cover'.
