The Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed a woman’s request to revive her lawsuit against the FBI after federal officers raided her Atlanta home, mistakenly, with their guns drawn.
The event traumatized her and her young son. It also led to her former boyfriend leaving his job.
Patrick Jaicomo, the lawyer representing Curtrina Martin, whose home was raided, said when a pizza is delivered to the wrong address, a refund is given; so, similarly, the government should pay for its mistake.
“The government’s policy is to raid the right house. They didn’t do that,” he told the justices.
The challenge focuses on the Federal Torts Claims Act, which lets Americans sue government agencies.
Ms. Martin sued the federal government to recover damages that were caused when the agents threw a flash bang grenade into her living room in October 2017 with their guns drawn.
After questioning one of the adults in the house, the agents realized they raided the wrong address. According to court filings, the agents were in the home for about five minutes.
An agent left the family with information to contact the team’s supervisor, but now, nearly eight years later, the family — which included Ms. Martin, her son Gabe, who was 7 at the time, and her former boyfriend Toi Cliatt — has still not been reimbursed for the trauma caused by the incident.
“We’ll never be the same, mentally, emotionally, psychologically,” Ms. Martin told The Associated Press. “Mentally, you can suppress it, but you can’t really get over it.”
She stopped coaching track due to the starting pistol reminding her of the grenade from that day in her living room.
And Mr. Cliatt has trouble sleeping, which forced him to leave his truck-driving job.
“The road is hypnotizing,” he said. “I became a liability to my company.”
Ms. Martin says her son is anxious and pulls out threads from his clothes and peels paint off the walls.
The FBI agent blamed his personal GPS device for the error, saying it diverted his team to the wrong house. They were trying to arrest a suspected gang member.
The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the family, reasoning the agent was acting within his law enforcement scope and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Other appeals courts have interpreted the federal law to be more favorable for victims.
The justices appeared sympathetic to the Martin family’s claims, but struggled with where to draw a line on the government’s liability.
“It is not a question of did he make a mistake in his warrant application,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee. “I am talking about a wrong house raid.”
“You got a great decision below — but is that fair?” Justice Sotomayor asked the government’s lawyer. “Congress is providing a remedy to people who have been wrongfully raided.”
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, suggested the police could have done more due diligence.
“No policy says, ‘Don’t break down the door of the wrong house? Don’t traumatize its occupants, really?” he asked. “You might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door.”
In the alternative, Justice Gorsuch said maybe confirm that the officers are on the right street. “Checking the street sign. Is that asking too much?”
But Frederick Liu, assistant solicitor general, said certain steps could put law enforcement in danger.
“The officers here made a reasonable mistake,” he told the court. “Checking the house number at the end of the driveway means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire.”
Christopher Mills, a lawyer who was asked to address the issue of whether the Supremacy Clause that puts federal law above state law can bar claims under the Federal Torts Claims Act for negligent acts, urged the justices to affirm the 11th Circuit’s decision.
“Government agencies are not liable for acts within their federal duties,” he said.
The case is Curtrina Martin v. United States. A decision is expected by the end of June.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
