U.S. Supreme Court revives lawsuit from Atlanta family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI
WASHINGTON — An Atlanta family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI will get a new day in court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday.
The opinion comes after a predawn 2017 raid in which an armed FBI SWAT team smashed in a front door and set off a flashbang grenade, pointing guns at a couple and terrifying a 7-year-old boy before realizing they were in the wrong house.
The FBI team quickly apologized and left for the right place, with the team leader later saying that his personal GPS device had led him to the wrong address.
The couple, Trina Martin and Toi Cliatt, filed a lawsuit against the federal government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations. But lower courts tossed out the case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found they couldn't sue over what amounted to an honest mistake. The appeals court also found the lawsuit was barred under a provision of the Constitution known as the Supremacy Clause, which says federal laws take precedence over state laws.
The family's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress clearly allowed for lawsuits like theirs after a pair of similar headline-making raids on wrong houses in 1974. The 11th Circuit was also ruling differently than other courts around the country, they said.
Public interest groups from across the political spectrum urged the justices to overturn the ruling, saying its reasoning would severely narrow the legal path for people to sue the federal government in law-enforcement accountability cases.
___
Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
30 minutes ago
- CTV News
Is U.S. woman's murder trial a tale of love gone wrong or a police cover-up?
Lawyers in the murder trial of Karen Read are set to give their closing arguments Friday after weeks of testimony in a highly divisive case in which the prosecution's theory of jaded love turned deadly is countered by a defence claim that a cast of tight-knit Boston area law enforcement killed a fellow police officer. Read, 45, is accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, 46, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a house party where other local police and a federal agent were closing out a night of drinking in 2022. She's charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene in Canton, outside Boston. Read's defence has suggested she was the victim of a wide-ranging conspiracy that included planting evidence and using her as a convenient scapegoat for her boyfriend's death. The first Read trial ended July 1 in a mistrial due to a hung jury, and several jurors came out after to say that the panel had unanimously agreed that Read was not guilty of the most serious charge of second-degree murder. Prosecution has focused on the scene of death The state's case was led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan, who called fewer witnesses than prosecutor Adam Lally, who ran the first trial against Read. Brennan has referenced Read's statement about the possibility that she backed into O'Keefe, which the defence has pointed out came not from police reports but from a voluntary interview she did for a documentary series. In the television interview, Read said, 'I didn't think I hit him,' but acknowledged she could have 'clipped him.' In the first trial, the state called Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the case. Proctor would later be fired after a disciplinary board found he sent sexist and crude text messages about Read. Proctor was asked to read the texts aloud in court during the first trial, but in the second, the prosecution relied on others to read the offensive comments. The defence called one of Proctor's friends to read more texts that suggested he had focused on Read early in the investigation. During the first trial, Proctor acknowledged being friends with Kevin Albert, a Canton police officer who is the brother of the owner of the home where the party was held. Prosecutors this time focused on evidence from the scene, and tried to make the point that broken pieces of Read's taillight show she struck O'Keefe with her vehicle. The defence has argued that the taillight was actually damaged when Read was backing out of O'Keefe's house and hit his car. They have suggested Proctor and others could have colluded to plant the pieces of broken plastic near O'Keefe's body after they took the vehicle back to the police department. Experts called by the prosecutors testified that data on O'Keefe's phone matched with it being located near a flagpole on the lawn, near the street, where his body was found. There was also no phone activity after that and the phone's battery temperature dropped considerably, the specialist said. Another specialist used GPS and phone data to place Read's vehicle at the scene around the same time. Another expert testified that Read's vehicle reversed more than 50 feet (15 metres) at about 23 mph (37 km/h). Andre Porto, a forensic scientist who works in the DNA unit of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, detailed various items he tested, including the broken rear taillight and pieces of a broken cocktail glass found in the yard. Only O'Keefe was a likely match for both. A hair found on Read's vehicle was a match for O'Keefe. Traces of DNA from three people, O'Keefe and two unknown individuals, were on the outside of Read's taillight and O'Keefe's clothing, Porto said. Prosecutors called a neurosurgeon who testified that O'Keefe suffered a 'classic blunt trauma injury' associated with falling backward and hitting his head. The broken cocktail glass found at the scene is another key piece of evidence, prosecutors have said, because O'Keefe was holding it when Read dropped him off. The prosecution pointed out that Read and O'Keefe were fighting. Voicemails recovered from Read's phone in which she said, 'I (expletive) hate you,' to O'Keefe were played in court. That voicemail would have arrived while he was lying in the snow. The defence's strategy in the second trial Read's defence team has cast doubt on the state's case by suggesting Read was framed. The defence has painted a picture of a deceitful web of people in O'Keefe's social network who saw Read as a scapegoat for his death. The network includes federal agent Brian Higgins, who exchanged flirtatious text messages with Read, leading the defence to question if that led to a fatal confrontation. Higgins was present at the party on the night of O'Keefe's death. Defence attorneys presented a different view of how Read's taillight was cracked. They have attempted to show, via witnesses, surveillance video and photographs, that Read may have damaged her taillight the morning after O'Keefe's death when she backed out of his driveway and bumped his car with her own. Nicholas Barros, a police officer at a department where Read's car was impounded, testified that he saw only a small crack in Read's taillight when the car first arrived. The defence has pointed out that the taillight later looked much more damaged, arguing it could have been tampered with. A crash expert who testified for the defence said, based on every test he performed, the damage to Read's taillight and O'Keefe's clothing was inconsistent with her SUV striking an arm or body at the speed described by the prosecution. The defence has also questioned why investigators never entered the home where the party took place, although witnesses from the scene and prosecutors have said O'Keefe never went inside. Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a former medical examiner called by the defence, said O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma to the back of the head, but that his eye wounds were not consistent with being hit by the rear of Read's SUV. She testified she did not think O'Keefe was hit by the SUV at all. The defence also questioned Jennifer McCabe, who was at the house party and is the sister-in-law of the host, retired Boston police officer Brian Albert. McCabe made a misspelled web search, 'hos long to die in cold,' after O'Keefe's death. The timing of the search has been in question. The defence argued that McCabe made the search at about 2:30 a.m. and helped cover for the real killer. The prosecution claims she searched after O'Keefe's body was found later in the morning. The defence called into question the actions of others who were at the party the night O'Keefe died. The party happened at the home of Albert, and after O'Keefe's death, the Alberts rehomed their dog Chloe — who the defence claims bit O'Keefe — and refurbished their basement before selling their home at a loss. Dr. Marie Russell, a retired emergency medicine physician, testified that the wounds on O'Keefe's arms were the result of a dog attack, injuries the prosecution attributes to being struck by Read's vehicle. The judge in the case did not allow medical examiner Laposata to testify specifically about potential dog bite wounds, but did allow her to testify that some of O'Keefe's arm injuries were consistent with an animal bite, not with wounds from a broken taillight. The defence introduced phone records that showed unanswered calls between Albert and Higgins in the early morning hours after O'Keefe's death. They both later destroyed their phones, with Higgins testifying in the first trial that he obliterated his phone's SIM card and disposed of it at a military base. The defence also introduced records from McCabe that showed she repeatedly called O'Keefe after midnight, calls she described as 'butt dials.' Read faces a maximum penalty of a life sentence if convicted. Patrick Whittle, The Associated Press
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Israeli strikes on Iran lead to new test of Trump's ability to deliver on ‘America first' agenda
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump walk after greeting guests during the congressional picnic on the South Lawn of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) WASHINGTON — Just hours before Israel launched strikes on Iran early Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump was still holding onto tattered threads of hope that a long-simmering dispute over Tehran's nuclear program could be resolved without military action. But with the Israeli military operation called 'Rising Lion' now underway — something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says will go on for 'as many days as it takes' — Trump will be tested anew on his ability to make good on a campaign promise to disentangle the U.S. from foreign conflicts. The administration's immediate reaction to the Israeli assault came not from Trump, but from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is doubling as Trump's national security adviser. He made clear that the U.S. was 'not involved' and that the administration's central concern was protecting U.S. forces in the region. 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense,' Rubio said in a statement. 'President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' As Israel stepped up planning for strikes in recent weeks, however, Iran, had signaled that the United States would be held responsible in the event of an Israeli attack. The warning was issued by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi even as he engaged in talks with Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. On Thursday, just hours before the strikes, Trump made the case that there was still time for diplomacy — but it was running out. The White House had even planned to dispatch Witkoff to Oman on Sunday for the next round of talks with Araghchi. It wasn't immediately clear how the strikes would affect plans for those discussions. Trump is set to meet with his National Security Council in the Situation Room on Friday to discuss the tricky path ahead. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., offered rare words of Democratic praise for the Trump administration after the attack 'for prioritizing diplomacy' and 'refraining from participating in tonight's actions.' But he also expressed deep concern about what the Israeli strikes could mean for U.S. personnel in the region. Iranian officials made clear that they intended to retaliate with decisive action after the Israeli strikes targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz and the country's ballistic missile program, as well as top nuclear scientists and officials. 'I cannot understand why Israel would launch a preemptive strike at this juncture, knowing high level diplomatic discussions between the United States and Iran are scheduled for this weekend,' Kaine said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the U.S. Senate 'stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas.' Trump in the hours before the attack still appeared hopeful that there would be more time for diplomacy. The president, in an exchange with reporters, again urged Iran to negotiate a deal. He warned that a 'massive conflict' could occur in the Middle East without it. He later took to social media to emphasize that his 'entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.' As long as there was a chance for an agreement, Trump said of Israel, 'I don't want them going in because I think it would blow it.' But it was clear to the administration that Israel was edging toward taking military action against Iran. The State Department on Wednesday directed a voluntary evacuation of nonessential personnel and their families from some U.S. diplomatic outposts in the Middle East. 'I don't want to be the one that didn't give any warning, and missiles are flying into their buildings. It's possible. So I had to do it,' Trump explained. Before Israel launched the strikes, some of Trump's strongest supporters were raising concerns about what another expansive conflict in the Mideast could mean for the Republican president who ran on a promise to quickly end the brutal wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Trump has struggled to find an endgame to either of those conflicts and to make good on two of his biggest foreign policy campaign promises. And after criticizing President Joe Biden during last year's campaign for preventing Israel from carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump found himself making the case to the Israelis to give diplomacy a chance. The push by the Trump administration to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear program came after the U.S. and other world powers in 2015 reached a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' The way forward is even more clouded now. 'No issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy,' Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and an ally of the Trump White House, posted on X Thursday. 'I'm very concerned based on (everything) I've seen in the grassroots the last few months that this will cause a massive schism in MAGA and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' Jack Posobiec, another prominent Trump supporter, warned a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' 'Trump smartly ran against starting new wars, this is what the swing states voted for — the midterms are not far and Congress' majority is already razor-thin,' Posobiec added in a posting on X. Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, said the job ahead for Trump and his team is to protect U.S. forces who are highly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. 'Israel's strike on Iran must not become the United States' war,' Kelanic said. 'The U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes another military engagement in the Middle East for good reason — an open-ended military campaign in Iran would risk repeating the catastrophic mistakes of the 2003 war in Iraq, which inadvertently strengthened Tehran's influence there.' ___ AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed reporting. Aamer Madhani, The Associated Press
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Chris Selley: Our supreme court's chief justice is a busted flush. What will we do about it?
'I don't know who paid for that, so how can there be a conflict of interest?' That hall-of-fame, mic-drop Canadian quote, delivered to National Post's Christopher Nardi this week, came from no less an authority than the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Wagner. Article content Article content The thing Wagner supposedly doesn't know who paid for is a hideous bronze bust of himself that sits in the entrance hall of the Supreme Court building, where it breaks at least two longstanding traditions: one, that only former chief justices get publicly busted; and two, that the busts indicate their provenance. Article content Article content Let us pause here to consider the proposition Canada's most senior jurist has placed before us, in public, as if he thought he was defending himself effectively. Article content Article content We are to believe he just showed up to work one morning to find himself immortalized in bronze in the lobby of his office, and not only did he not know where this bronze bust came from, but at no point in the many months since it showed up has he bothered to inquire where it came from. Article content 'The Chief Justice's bust was donated to the Court by a donor who specifically asked to remain anonymous. For this reason, the plaque bears no mention of the donor. We have no information on the cost of the bust,' the Supreme Court's executive legal officer Stéphanie Bachand told National Post last year. 'Neither the Chief Justice nor the court's administration know about the donor's identity.' Article content If you believe that — and far be it from me to suggest you should doubt the word of a fine, upstanding, Jesuit-educated judge such as Wagner — then isn't that a bit of a problem in itself? Canada's decider-in-chief wasn't even a bit curious? Can anyone just donate a grotesque likeness of a Supreme Court justice, FedEx it to the Supreme Court, and expect it to be prominently on display when they show up a week later? Article content Article content It's not as though Wagner doesn't take ownership of the court's other general affairs. At the same press conference Wednesday where he disavowed any knowledge of how the unexpected statuary arrived, he updated reporters on the renovation schedule for the Supreme Court building, and confirmed the court would be hearing cases in Halifax in 2027. He also wants new robes for the justices, because that was definitely the squeaky wheel that needed greasing. Article content
