One of the things that outraged our Founding Fathers was when the British used armed force to take over somebody's home and station their forces there. It was so egregious an act that when it came time to write a Constitution they included a clause, the Third Amendment, specifically outlawing such actions by the new United States.
In Nevada, police wanted to quarter officers in the home of Anthony Mitchell to keep watch on his neighbor. Mitchell refused. Police forces then invaded Mitchell's home, attacked and arrested him, and took possession of his home for their own uses. And abuses as the police ate the Mitchell's food and left a mess behind when the concluded their occupation. The consensus opinion is the Nevada will claim that armed police forces do not qualify as "soldiers" and that in denying police demand to surrender their home to police was an act of obstruction justifying both the warrentless arrest and physical punishment.
What about the criminal the Nevada police wanted to keep an eye one? He wasn't a terrorist, murderer, or Mafia don, he was suspected (suspected only) of domestic abuse. Apparently, the only people arrested in this affair were the innocent homeowners.