Supreme Court to Hear FBI Wrong-Home Raid Case
BY Herschel Smith
2 days, 2 hours ago
ATLANTA — Before dawn on Oct. 18, 2017, FBI agents broke down the front door of Trina Martin’s Atlanta home, stormed into her bedroom and pointed guns at her and her then-boyfriend as her 7-year-old son screamed for his mom from another room.
Martin, blocked from comforting her son, cowered in disbelief for what she said felt like an eternity. But within minutes, the ordeal was over. The agents realized they had the wrong house.
On Tuesday, an attorney for Martin will go before the U.S. Supreme Court to ask the justices to reinstate her 2019 lawsuit against the U.S. government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations.
A federal judge in Atlanta dismissed the suit in 2022 and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision last year. The Supreme Court agreed in January to take up the matter.
The key issue before the justices is under what circumstances people can sue the federal government in an effort to hold law enforcement accountable. Martin’s attorneys say Congress clearly allowed for those lawsuits in 1974, after a pair of law enforcement raids on wrong houses made headlines, and blocking them would leave little recourse for families like her.
FBI Atlanta spokesperson Tony Thomas said in an email the agency can’t comment on pending litigation. But lawyers for the government argued in Martin’s case that courts shouldn’t be “second-guessing” law enforcement decisions. The FBI agents did advance work and tried to find the right house, making this raid fundamentally different from the no-knock, warrantless raids that led Congress to act in the 1970s, the Justice Department said in court filings starting under the Biden administration.
In dismissing Martin’s case, the 11th Circuit largely agreed with that argument, saying courts can’t second-guess police officers who make “honest mistakes” in searches. The agent who led the raid said his personal GPS led him to the wrong place. The FBI was looking for a suspected gang member a few houses away.
Martin, 46, said she, her then-boyfriend, Toi Cliatt, and her son were left traumatized.
“We’ll never be the same, mentally, emotionally, psychologically,” she said Friday at the neat, stucco home that was raided. “Mentally, you can suppress it, but you can’t really get over it.”
She and Cliatt pointed out where they were sleeping when the agents broke in and the master bathroom closet where they hid.
Martin stopped coaching track because the starting pistol reminded her of the flashbang grenade the agents set off. Cliatt, 54, said he couldn’t sleep, forcing him to leave his truck driving job.
“The road is hypnotizing,” he said of driving tired. “I became a liability to my company.”
Martin said her son became extremely anxious, pulling threads out of his clothes and peeling paint off walls.
Cliatt initially thought the raid was a burglary attempt, so he ran toward the closet, where he kept a shotgun. Martin said her son still expresses fear that she could have died had she confronted the agents while armed.
“If the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a cause of action for anything, it’s a wrong-house raid like the one the FBI conducted here,” Martin’s lawyers wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court.
Other U.S. appeals courts have interpreted the law more favorably for victims of mistaken law enforcement raids, creating conflicting legal standards that only the nation’s highest court can resolve, they say. Public-interest groups across the ideological spectrum have urged the Supreme Court to overturn the 11th Circuit ruling.
After breaking down the door to the house, a member of the FBI SWAT team dragged Cliatt out of the closet and put him in handcuffs.
But one of the agents noticed he did not have the suspect’s tattoos, according to court documents. He asked for Cliatt’s name and address. Neither matched those of the suspect. The room went quiet as agents realized they had raided the wrong house.
They uncuffed Cliatt and left for the correct house, where they executed the warrant and arrested the man they were after.
The agent leading the raid returned later to apologize and leave a business card with a supervisor’s name. But the family received no compensation from the government, not even for the damage to the house, Cliatt said.
Martin said the most harrowing part of the raid was her son’s cries.
“When you’re not able to protect your child or at least fight to protect your child, that’s a feeling that no parent ever wants to feel,” she said.
First, he’d better be glad he never reached for that shotgun. He’d be dead now. Second, if they had a dog in the house, the dog would be dead too. Third, notice what the attorneys for the FedGov said: “Courts shouldn’t be second guessing law enforcement decisions.”
In other words, the constitution doesn’t apply to them. They call it “second guessing.” The arrogance of this statement is remarkable.
The bill of rights is precisely for protecting citizens from actions by the government, and all legal cases involve second guessing. It’s what happens in court when a jury decides whether rights have been violated (or in this case, the courts). That courts are making the determination is obscene because officers of the court are deciding whether other officers of the court have violated constitutionally protected rights.
Remember why raids like this are terrible, horrible, no-good and very bad. First, they violate God given rights. A man’s home is his castle and he has the right to protect it from all home invaders. Second, innocent men, women and children get injured and in some cases killed. Third, even if police need evidence, they can always get that evidence the old fashioned way – by detective work and investigation. There is nothing stopping them from entering the premises when people are not home.
Fourth, if they need to apprehend an Indvidual, the same rule applies. They can do it safely rather than causing risk to the home owners. I have no interest in minimizing risk to cops. I have every interest in minimizing risk to others. Fifth, sometimes they get the addresses wrong, and sometimes they listen to very unreliable people as CIs and do things they shouldn’t be doing based on bad information. Sixth, criminals have begun to mimic police SWAT teams in home invasion tactics. If a man and his family must lay on the floor and beg for mercy against home invaders, then that’s the end of the second amendment as it concerns protection of family, hearth and home.
None of this is good or righteous. Any man who engages in these acts is engaging in an unrighteous action. But it actually concerns me that the supreme court will hear the case. I expect the “law and order” types to side with the cops. Nothing could be worse than for the SCOTUS to justify bad law and make this precedent-setting.
On April 27, 2025 at 8:51 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I wonder what’s involved in filing a friend of the court brief and whether I could do it?
On April 27, 2025 at 10:37 pm, Dan said:
It’s not “second guessing”. It’s ACCOUNTABILITY. And it MUST apply to EVERYONE or else it applies to NOBODY.
On April 28, 2025 at 12:06 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, otherwise known as “Instapundit,” has advocated for a partial or complete repeal of sovereign immunity for some years now, i.e., the immunity government entities enjoy from lawsuits and other legal challenges.
But there is another reform which must go hand-in-hand with such efforts, and that is that the access of government agencies to taxpayer funds/general revenues for legal defenses must be limited or even cutoff.
When the government goes to court, it almost always has the deepest of pockets, namely a nearly bottomless well of taxpayer revenues upon which to draw. Because the government can afford to wait out so many challenges and/or setbacks, many plaintiffs simply give up or settle for a negotiated settlement.
And when the courts do find against a police dept., for example, any damages are almost always paid by the taxpayers. It doesn’t come of out of the “hide” of the agency whatsoever. Their budget doesn’t get hammered, nor are anyone’s pensions in jeopardy. In short, the taxpayers will cover them – and they get on with business-as-usual.
Henceforth, when an agency is sued and loses, the damages ought to come directly out of its budget, just as they would with any other defendant who loses a case. And just as in the private sector, if you make transgress against the law or make a major mistake, your job ought to be in question… along with whatever pay/benefits you get, including retirement.
Unless/until government agencies have “skin in the game” and stand to lose funding and/or jobs due to negligence, lost lawsuits, and the like as a result of unethical/unprofessional behavior or worse – nothing will change, because there will be no real incentive to change. If failure and incompetence don’t have negative costs and consequences, why should anyone change how they behave?
No one – whether he is employed in the private or public sector – likes negative consequences for anything, but that does not mean negative feedback is useless. On the contrary, it is vital as a mechanism for correcting maladjustment in the marketplace, keeping quality and professionalism high, and for keeping everyone honest.
The lack of negative feedback for so much of the government is one reason why nothing ever seems to change, even when it under-performs or fails entirely. Indeed, mediocrity and failure are just seen as a rationale for asking for a bigger budget next year.
A system which punished success and merit, but rewards mediocrity and failure, or at least does not punish them – is bound to fail sooner or later. And in every way possible – ethical, moral, financial, professional, etc.
On April 28, 2025 at 7:39 am, TMF Bert said:
Quoted from the original post,
The key issue before the justices is under what circumstances people can sue the federal government in an effort to hold law enforcement accountable. Martin’s attorneys say Congress clearly allowed for those lawsuits in 1974, after a pair of law enforcement raids on wrong houses made headlines, and blocking them would leave little recourse for families like her.
The problem with this is the Supreme Court decision in Harlow v. Fitzgerald in 1982 that established what we now know as “qualified immunity”.
Note that this case had nothing to do with “law enforcement” but has been used as cover for their bad actions for decades now. I will snip a bit from it just to highlight the biggest problem of “getting rid of it”
Held:
1. Government officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suits for damages — including certain officials of the Executive Branch, such as prosecutors and similar officials, see Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, and the President, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ante p. 457 U. S. 731 — are entitled to the defense of absolute immunity. However, executive officials in general are usually entitled to only qualified or good faith immunity. The recognition of a qualified immunity defense for high executives reflects an attempt to balance competing values: not only the importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens, but also the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232. Federal officials seeking absolute immunity from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope. Pp. 457 U. S. 806-808.
This was a finding for protection of government officials.
Does anyone really believe simply asking government officials at any level to discard that shield will be productive??
On April 28, 2025 at 7:41 am, Warren V. DeCee said:
Mr. Herschel Smith, I am not a lawyer, however, my research indicates that an amicus brief must be filed by an attorney who is in good standing with the US Supreme Court.
On April 28, 2025 at 8:04 am, george 1 said:
In all probability the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case so that they can set national precedent that LEOs are above the law and they will never be held accountable for their “mistakes.”
On April 28, 2025 at 8:31 am, Latigo Morgan said:
Jose Guerena had the tactical advantage and hesitated when he realized it was a real SWAT team instead of the home invasion crew that was plaguing his neighborhood – and was shot 60 times for standing down, found with his AR15’s safety on.
Guerena was also a Marine Veteran of the Iraq war.
On April 28, 2025 at 8:31 am, Ken said:
Co equal branch? If the President can be sued, why can’t Roberts or any other Officer of the court be sued? For a long time I have said our government is no longer viable. Proof is the voting record of of congress and the scotus (lower case intentional). It must be replaced and start over. I think the founders were right. Lawyers should never be near power. The US Constitution was written in plain language and not “legalise”. Perhaps we need plain educated people that know/understand the Founding Fathers and their words to be judges. However, even an educated layman cannot now be trusted with power. I have no hope for the future.
On April 28, 2025 at 3:21 pm, Rick said:
In a pre-dawn forceable entry to a friend’s private residence, county sheriff deputies and federal DEA agents forced the husband and wife out of bed and to lie face down on the bedroom floor. The three children, all less than nine years, were forcibly removed from their beds and kept on a couch under shotguns at the low ready pointed at them.
The home was searched, cabinets and drawers opened, mattresses and furniture overturned. The search went on for several hours. Bathroom visits, request for water, etc were denied. The wife, rather voluptuous wearing only a T shirt was denied a blanket or robe to cover herself.
After approx four hours, the deputies and agents realized they had the wrong house.
Worse, the parents were threatened with incarceration if they did not reveal the exact whereabouts of the subjects.
The raid was originated as part of a sting on illicit drug making. It turned out that some illegals had set up shop on a neighboring ranch property. The owner of that property was charged as an accomplice though even he had no knowledge of the illegal activity.
After several years in a lawsuit (held in a courtroom hundreds of miles away) the family received a monetary settlement to cover physical damage to the home. That was it. Not even an official apology.
On April 28, 2025 at 3:34 pm, Rick said:
The more I read the U.S. Constitution, the more I realize the government which exists today is so far outside the bounds of the chartering document that it is representative only to itself. It is with bitter tears that I submit the Republic is dead.
Ken, the only surest hope has only been in Christ Jesus. That hope is still unto today and ever.
On April 28, 2025 at 9:29 pm, X said:
“On Tuesday, an attorney for Martin will go before the U.S. Supreme Court to ask the justices to reinstate her 2019 lawsuit against the U.S. government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations.”
Not being pedantic here, but this is an important point: she is SUING in civil court for “assault and battery” which are CRIMES. Not only should she get paid, yes — but that does not invalidate the fact that the cops committed CRIMES for which they were not charged: breaking and entering, brandishing, false imprisonment, assault, and battery, etc.
Why were the cops not CRIMINALLY charged? If I were to make a “mistake” and break into the wrong home, or point a gun at someone who I thought was committing a crime but in fact was not, I would be ARRESTED and CRIMINALLY charged.
Yet cops get a pass under “qualified immunity”… “Sorry, it was a ‘mistake.'” You’ll just have to deal with it, peasant.
That’s bullshit in my book.
On April 29, 2025 at 7:06 pm, Paul B said:
I hope no one ever breaks down my door for entry. I do not care what they have one, I will fight with everything I have.