WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court sounded willing to allow an Atlanta family to sue the FBI for compensation over the mistaken search of their home, but reluctant to define how much protection law enforcement officers deserve in carrying out their jobs.
Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the “monstrous noise” of a half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn.
But the FBI agents were at the wrong home, 436 feet from a similar beige, split-level house where a suspected gang member lived. The justices sounded willing to allow a lawsuit for compensation for the mistake, after lower courts dismissed the case.
“You are begging the question, which is, how far does this discretionary exception goes?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government lawyer.
The FBI agents described their meticulous planning to search the house by locating it with GPS during daylight, taking pictures and drawing up a tactical plan. Frederick Liu, an assistant to the solicitor general, said officers were weighing public safety concerns and executing the search swiftly through steps such as not checking the address on the mailbox at the house before entering.
‘Don’t break down the wrong door’
Justice Gorsuch asked whether U.S. policy says, “don’t break down the wrong door of a house” or “don’t traumatize its occupants.”
“How about make sure you’re on the right street?” Gorsuch asked.
“Of course, it’s the United States policy to execute the warrants at the right house,” Liu replied. “What I would say is exactly what the courts below found, which is that the officers here made a reasonable mistake as to where they were.”
Liu said a 1974 change in federal law at the heart of the case removed one protection for police against lawsuits but left another in place to block the family’s case. But Sotomayor was skeptical.
“That is so ridiculous,” Sotomayor said.
What is the Federal Tort Claims Act?
The family sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which Congress amended in 1974 to allow lawsuits against law enforcement after two wrong-house raids the year before. But the government argued that judges shouldn’t second-guess agents doing their jobs. A District Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case by finding the agents were immune.
Gorsuch asked whether the high court could send the case back to the 11th Circuit to determine whether the FBI in this case deserved discretion to make the mistake they did.
“Wouldn’t that be a sensible course?” Gorsuch asked.
Patrick Jaicomo, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice representing the family, said federal appeals courts have disagreed about how much discretion police deserve with messy discussions of the faces of specific cases. But the 11th Circuit’s decision would rule out any lawsuits against law enforcement – despite Congress changing the law, Jaicomo argued.
“The line is being drawn right now by all the circuits. They’re just confused about where to draw it,” Jaicomo said. “There needs to be some guidance on this, so that this statutory provision actually has effect.”
Roberts suggests lawsuit ‘plausible’ under statute
The statute removed sovereign immunity from lawsuits for “assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process or malicious prosecution” based on “acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government.”
Liu, the government lawyer, said Congress hadn’t intended to remove all protections for law enforcement based on where changes were made in the statute.
But Chief Justice John Roberts said lawmakers are busy and “it’s certainly plausible” the family’s lawsuit should be allowed.
“I don’t really think that’s plausible,” Liu replied.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the justices could simply return the case to the 11th Circuit by saying a provision in the Constitution doesn’t prevent a lawsuit and let the lower-court judges sort out how much discretion police deserve in making mistakes.
Justices sound reluctant to define how much protection police get from lawsuits
Justices sounded reluctant to map out how much discretion law enforcement officers deserve.
Sotomayor said a Secret Service agent who mistakenly arrested someone while protecting the president deserved protection from a claim of false arrest. She disagreed that legal claims for intentional actions could never be discretionary.
“I’m not quite sure that’s true,” Sotomayor said.
Justice Samuel Alito told the family’s lawyer the high court could simply send the case back to the 11th Circuit to discuss how much discretion to grant the FBI agents for their mistake.
“I know you would like us to go quite far,” Alito said. “Why should we go further than that and get into this enormously complicated question about the scope of the discretionary function exception?”
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sounds willing to allow family’s lawsuit against FBI
The post Guns drawn, the FBI barged into the wrong house. Supreme Court justice calls it ‘ridiculous’ appeared first on USA TODAY.
