Supreme Court Weighs Case About Mistaken FBI Raid
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 29 over whether the FBI should be protected from a civil suit over its mistaken raiding of a Georgia couple's home in 2017.
In the early morning hours of Oct. 18, 2024, FBI Special Agent Lawrence Guerra mistakenly believed he had arrived at a gang member's home to execute a search warrant. Instead, he smashed through the door of a different home—that of Hilliard Toi Cliatt and his partner, Curtrina Martin.
According to their
Although Guerra had conducted a pre-dawn drive-by in preparation, court filings state that the GPS directed them to a different home. The address of Cliatt's and Martin's home was not on the house itself but was instead on the mailbox and 'is not visible from the street,' according to the Justice Department's filing.
During oral arguments on April 29, the Supreme Court weighed whether Martin and Cliatt should be able to sue the government. A law known as the Federal Tort Claims Act generally allows individuals to sue the government for certain acts, such as assault, false arrest, or abuse of process. It includes an exception, however, for legal claims involving the government's discretion in performing a particular duty or function.
This was the caveat the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit cited in refusing to allow the couple's lawsuit to proceed. Martin and Cliatt, however, pointed to a provision added to the law in 1974 after mistaken raids in Collinsville, Illinois. That provision allowed legal arguments by plaintiffs based on 'acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government.'
Related Stories
4/29/2025
3/19/2024
The justices' line of questioning on April 29 indicated they would remand or send the case back to the appeals court with a narrow win for the couple that entailed more consideration by another judge.
At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed incredulous at some of the comments made by Assistant to the Solicitor General Frederick Liu, who suggested that the FBI agents' mistakes were protected as an attempt to exercise discretion. Liu argued that because there was no specific policy directing the FBI agent not to search a house other than the suspect's, he retained some level of legal protection.
'No policy says don't break down the wrong house—door of a house ... don't traumatize its occupants, really?' Gorsuch asked.
Liu said that while the United States' policy 'of course' is to execute warrants at the correct house, 'stating the policy at that high level of generality doesn't foreclose or prescribe any particular action and how an officer goes about identifying the right house.' He went on to suggest that officers may need to consider things such as public safety and efficiency when determining whether to take an 'extra precaution' to ensure they're at the right house.
Gorsuch interjected, saying, 'You might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door.'
'Yes,' Liu responded, adding, 'that sort of decision is filled with policy tradeoffs.'
Gorsch interrupted, asking, 'Really?'
After Liu said that checking the house number at the end of the driveway could expose agents to potential lines of fire, Gorsuch asked, 'How about making sure you're on the right street ... checking the street sign? Is that too much?'
Liu told Justice Sonia Sotomayor that the 1974 addition removed one layer of protection for officers but allowed another layer to stay in place.
'That is so ridiculous,' Sotomayor said. 'Congress is looking at the Collinsville raid and providing a remedy to people who have been wrongfully raided, and you're now saying, no, they really didn't want to protect them fully.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 minutes ago
Spirit Airlines plane passenger calls in fake bomb threat after missing flight: Officials
A Michigan man has been arrested after missing his flight to Los Angeles and calling in a fake bomb threat after being made to book another flight, officials said. The incident took place last Thursday at approximately 6:25 a.m. at Detroit Metropolitan Airport when an individual, later identified as 23-year-old John Charles Robinson of Monore, Michigan, 'used a cell phone to call into Spirit Airlines and conveyed false information about a bomb threat to Flight 2145 departing from Detroit Metro bound for Los Angeles,' according to a statement from United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr. from the Eastern District of Michigan United States Attorney's Office. 'During the call, Robinson stated in part, 'I was calling about 2145… because I have information about that flight,' and 'there's gonna be someone who's gonna try to blow up the airport,' and 'there's gonna be someone that's gonna try to blow up that flight, 2145,'' according to the affidavit. 'After giving a description of an individual, he then stated: 'they're going to be carrying a bomb through the TSA,' and 'they're still threatening to do it, they're still attempted to do it, they said it's not going to be able to be detected. Please don't let that flight board.'' The flight was immediately canceled, officials said and the flight's passengers and crew were deplaned for safety precautions. 'Bomb sniffing dogs and FBI agents were deployed to sweep the airplane, officials said. 'No bomb or explosives were found.' Federal agents investigating the bomb threat soon learned that Robinson was booked on Flight 2145 but missed the flight and was told at the gate that he needed to rebook. 'FBI agents subsequently arrested Robinson when he returned to the airport to depart on another flight bound for Los Angeles,' officials said. After taking Robinson into custody, authorities played back the phone call that was made for him. "Robinson listened to the above-mentioned recording and confirmed he was the one that made the recorded phone call to Spirit Airlines," officials said. "Robinson also stated that the phone number that called the bomb threat in to Spirit Airlines was his phone number (and had been for approximately 6 years), that the target cellular device was his device, and he gave written consent for a search of his device." Robinson was subsequently charged with two charges. The first being use of a cellphone to threaten/maliciously convey false information concerning an attempt or alleged attempt to damage/destroy an airplane by means of an explosive and the second being false information and hoaxes. 'No American wants to hear the words 'bomb' and 'airplane' in the same sentence. Making this kind of threat undermines our collective sense of security and wastes valuable law enforcement resources,' said U.S. Attorney Gorgon. 'Anyone who threatens to bomb an aircraft and endanger public safety will be swiftly investigated and brought to justice,' said Cheyvoryea Gibson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. 'The alleged bomb threat prompted a coordinated response by our FBI Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force, in partnership with the Wayne County Airport Authority Police Department and the U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service, leading to the arrest of John Robinson as he attempted to board another flight at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. We remain committed to protecting the public and confronting those who seek to spread fear in our communities.' Robinson appeared in federal court in Detroit on Friday afternoon and was released on a $10,00 bond, according to court documents. His next court appearance will be June 27 for a preliminary examination.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Netanyahu's government could collapse over ultra-Orthodox military draft law
BNEI BARAK, Israel (AP) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a vote to dissolve parliament Wednesday and key coalition partners have threatened to bring down his government. Still, few think it's the end of the road for Israel's longest-serving prime minister, who has been battling corruption charges for years, or his far-right government, still in power after presiding over the security failures surrounding the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack. The move to dissolve, called by the opposition, will only pass if Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox coalition partners break with him over the failure to pass a law exempting their community from military service, an issue that has bitterly divided Israelis, especially during the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. The threats coming from the ultra-Orthodox could be posturing, and many expect Netanyahu to pull off a last-minute deal. But Wednesday's vote is the most serious challenge to Netanyahu's government since the war began, and the coalition's collapse could have major implications for Israel and the ongoing war. Why do the ultra-Orthodox reject military service? Most Jewish men are required to serve nearly three years of military service followed by years of reserve duty. Jewish women serve two mandatory years. But the politically powerful ultra-Orthodox, who make up roughly 13% of Israeli society, have traditionally received exemptions if they are studying full-time in religious seminaries. The exemptions — and the government stipends many seminary students receive through age 26 — have infuriated the general public. After Hamas' 2023 attack, Israel activated 360,000 reservists, its largest mobilization since the 1973 Mideast war. Israel is engaged in the longest active war in the country's history, which has stretched its robust military to the breaking point. Many reserve soldiers have served multiple rounds of duty in Gaza totaling hundreds of days. Some reserve soldiers are rejecting new call-ups. The number of Israelis continuing to report for reserve duty has dropped so low that the military has taken to social media to try to recruit people to keep serving. The enlistment exemption for the ultra-Orthodox goes back to Israel's 1948 founding, when small numbers of gifted scholars were exempt from the draft in response to the decimation of Jewish scholarship during the Holocaust. But with a push from politically powerful religious parties, the numbers have swelled to tens of thousands today. Israel's Supreme Court said the exemptions were illegal in 2017, but repeated extensions and government delay tactics have prevented a replacement law from being passed. Among Israel's Jewish majority, mandatory military service is largely seen as a melting pot and rite of passage. That's exactly why some ultra-Orthodox don't want their children to serve. 'It mixes together people with very different backgrounds, very different ideas, some people with very immoral ideas,' said Rabbi Ephraim Luft, 66, from the ultra-Orthodox stronghold of Bnei Barak. Luft said the community's dedication to upholding Jewish commandments protects the country as much as military service. 'Over thousands of years, the Jewish people have stood very strongly against any kind of decrees to force them to give up their religion, they've given up their lives for this,' Luft said. 'People have to understand there's no difference between the Spanish Inquisition or the Israeli draft law.' Why would ultra-Orthodox parties want to bring down the government? Two parties belonging to the Haredim, or 'God-fearing' in Hebrew, are essential to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition. Both would need to vote to dissolve the government to force new elections, including Shas, which has traditionally been more supportive of Netanyahu. On Monday, a Shas spokesperson told an ultra-Orthodox radio program the party currently plans to vote in favor of dissolution, unless there is a breakthrough in negotiations. The other party, Degel HaTorah, has been threatening to leave the government since last week. 'Basically, they don't really care about the war and the economic situation of the state and anything else but their communal interest. And the focus of this communal interest is getting the exemption from serving in the army," said Shuki Friedman, an expert on religion and state affairs and vice president of the Jewish People Policy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. Friedman and other experts say the current system is unsustainable. With its high birthrate, the ultra-Orthodox are the fastest-growing segment of Israel's population, at about 4% annually. Each year, roughly 13,000 ultra-Orthodox men reach the conscription age of 18, but less than 10% enlist, according to parliament's State Control Committee, which held a hearing examining the issue. The shock of the Oct. 7 attack appeared to ignite some enthusiasm among the ultra-Orthodox to serve, but no large enlistment materialized. The army has repeatedly declined to comment on the ultra-Orthodox enlistment rate. What happens if parliament is dissolved? If the dissolution vote passes, it still faces a series of bureaucratic steps, including additional votes, that the government would likely drag on for weeks or months, said Gayil Talshir, a political science professor at Hebrew University. 'It will be like a gun that's been put into position, but that doesn't mean the coalition is over,' she said. Elections in Israel are currently scheduled for the fall of 2026. Both Talshir and Friedman believe it's unlikely the dissolution vote will pass Wednesday. If one ultra-Orthodox party is absent, the vote will not pass and another cannot be brought for six months, Talshir said. However, there's also a 'valid possibility' the rabbis who advise the ultra-Orthodox parties will say they've waited long enough for a draft exemption law, because they are facing enormous pressure from their communities, Friedman said. The army has issued thousands of draft notices to the ultra-Orthodox community, and those who refuse to serve can face arrest. While only around a dozen have been arrested after being stopped for trying to leave the country or for traffic violations, the fear this has inspired is significant, he added. What impact does this have on the war in Gaza and the hostage crisis? Netanyahu frequently cites the ongoing war as a reason why Israel needs to provide a united front against its enemies. While the ultra-Orthodox parties remain part of the coalition, they want the war to end as quickly as possible, Talshir said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tense scene at Weinstein trial as alleged perv appears to have medical episode after accuser's defiant gesture
Harvey Weinstein's Manhattan sex crimes retrial took a dramatic turn Tuesday when the accused serial perv apparently suffered a medical episode — sparking a frenzy of court officers to tend to him. The bizarre moment came after a former actress who accused Weinstein, 73, of raping her defiantly stared down the disgraced Hollywood producer after leaving the witness stand and pointed a finger at her eye, demanding that he look at her. The startling 'look at me' gesture by Jessica Mann, 38, prompted Weinstein's high-powered defense attorney Arthur Aidala to argue for a mistrial to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. As Aidala contended that the trial should be tossed, Weinstein bizarrely made gurgling sounds — and two court officers quickly surrounded him. The wheelchair-bound Weinstein took a sip of water, bringing the brief episode to an end. Asked later if Weinstein had a medical episode, Aidala told The Post that the Miramax founder's already-poor health has been getting worse. 'The short answer is yes, but it was alleviated,' the attorney said. 'He's not doing well. The last two weeks there has been a marked difference in his physical appearance and his stamina. I don't know if its the cancer kicking in, but he's definitely suffering.' Mann's daring gesture came after she wrenchingly detailed to jurors, between sobs, an alleged rape by Weinstein at a Beverly Hills hotel. But the convicted sex pest could only shake his head in response, before he descended into gurgling. 'That's absolutely inappropriate behavior by her,' Aidala wailed to the judge. Prosecutors argued Mann's reaction didn't even come close to grounds for a mistrial — and Farber agreed, denying Aidala's bid. Mann later returned to the stand and continued to recount the alleged California hotel rape, which took place around the beginning of 2014, recounting for jurors how she had taken an hours-long shower afterward. 'I'm going to bury this so deep and I'm going to forget about this and move on with my life,' she said she told herself. Mann testified that she decided to 'keep going' to pursue her Hollywood dreams – and continued to have contact with the powerful Weinstein, which led to a consensual sexual relationship. She recounted that she faked orgasms to end uncomfortable sexual encounters with Weinstein. 'I'm not saying I performed her performance but I made noises,' she said, comparing her fake orgasms to that of Meg Ryan's character in an infamous scene from the 1989 romantic comedy 'When Harry Met Sally.' 'It was definitely not the best I ever had,' she added when Aidala asked if it was a lie. Mann's first day of testimony Monday saw her tearfully detail another alleged rape by Weinstein in a Midtown hotel. She testified that after the attack, she found an erection-inducing drug needle apparently used by Weinstein in a hotel room's garbage can with a puzzling label. 'I found on Google that it basically meant 'dead penis,' and you inject it and it can only be used a certain amount of times back to back over a certain time,' she told jurors. Weinstein is only charged in the Midtown alleged rape. He has pleaded not guilty to charges in his sex crimes retrial. Weinstein in 2022 was found guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault at a Los Angeles trial. He has appealed the conviction.
