Very early on the fall morning of 2017, FBI agents knocked down by knocking down the front door of the Atlanta home. The guns were drawn, and they caused a flash bang hand ren bullet and rushed inside.
The couples who lived there, Hilliard Toy Critt and Cartrina Martin, barricaded in the closet. The agent dragged Kritt out at the muzzle and handcuffed him. They begged to meet his 7-year-old son, who was sleeping in another room, so they told Martin to keep his hands up.
He gave his address, as they questioned Mr. Kritt. That was different from the one that the agent had a warrant to enter.
One of the agents, Lawrence Guerra, had previously identified the right home. He said he was misdirected on the morning of the raid by his GPS device.
The couple sued with false arrests, false imprisonment, assault, batteries and other claims, but were lost in lower court for a variety of reasons.
The legal questions of the suit heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday are a set of exceptions and provisions involving the federal tort claims law, which may allow lawsuits against the government despite the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Much of the argument was technical and the courts appear to have headed towards a modest ruling that sent cases back to lower courts for further consideration.
But some justice appeared incredible when federal lawyer Frederick Liu said the attacks were not violating the policy.
“Don't break the wrong door,” asked Judge Neil M. Golsch. “Please don't hurt the residents? Really?”
Li has made his position clear. “It's a US policy to run the warrant in a proper home,” he said.
“I hope so,” replied Judge Gorsuch.
Nevertheless, Li said the agent's discretion in planning the attack was “fulfilled with policy considerations,” including “public safety considerations, efficiency considerations, and operational security.”
He said the plaintiffs, for example, had said that the agent should have checked their home numbers and asked them to make those decisions a second time.
Judge Golsach said, “Yeah, I might look at the address of the house before knocking down the door.”
However, Li said, “Checking the house number at the end of the driveway means exposing the agent to a potential fire.”
Judge Gorsuch continued. “Would you like to make sure you're in the right way?” he asked. “Check the street signs – is it asking too much?”
Li said the agent made a “rational mistake.” He added that amendments to the federal tort claims law, which calls for ease of sueing the wrong home after the infamous person in Collinsville, Illinois, did not apply to Atlanta's in 1974.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor was not tolerated. “That's so ridiculous,” she said. “Council is seeing the Collinsville attack and offering relief to those who were accidentally attacked. You're now saying, “No, they really didn't want to fully protect them.” ”
Patrick M. Giacomo, a lawyer at the Judicial Institute, represents the plaintiffs in the case, Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 said, “There is no doubt that there was no policy here.”
“As my friend said,” he added, referring to Mr. Liu. “The government's policy is to raid the right home. They didn't do that. Preparation is pointless to the ultimate outcome here. If it really means dropping pizza to the right address, that doesn't matter.
