The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could determine whether the federal government can be held liable when law enforcement raids the wrong home.
Curtrina Martin is seeking to revive her lawsuit against the FBI after agents mistakenly raided her Atlanta home in 2017, traumatizing her family. During the raid, agents threw a flash-bang grenade into her living room and entered with guns drawn before quickly realizing they were at the wrong address.
“We’ll never be the same, mentally, emotionally, psychologically,” Ms. Martin told The Associated Press. The effects have been far-reaching — she stopped coaching track because the starting pistol triggers memories of the grenade, while her son developed anxiety, pulling threads from clothes and peeling paint off walls. Her former boyfriend, Toi Cliatt, now struggles with sleep issues that forced him to leave his truck-driving job.
Patrick Jaicomo, Ms. Martin’s attorney, made a straightforward argument: “The government’s policy is to raid the right house. They didn’t do that.” He compared the situation to a pizza delivery error, where refunds are standard practice.
The case hinges on the Federal Torts Claims Act, which allows Americans to sue government agencies. The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals previously ruled against the family, determining the agent was acting within his law enforcement scope and didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.
The FBI blamed the error on an agent’s personal GPS device that directed the team to the wrong location while attempting to arrest a suspected gang member.
Several justices appeared sympathetic to the family. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the lower court’s ruling was fair, noting, “Congress is providing a remedy to people who have been wrongfully raided.” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch suggested basic due diligence could have prevented the mistake: “No policy says, ’Don’t break down the door of the wrong house?’”
The government maintained its position through Assistant Solicitor General Frederick Liu, who argued the officers “made a reasonable mistake” and that additional verification steps could endanger agents: “Checking the house number at the end of the driveway means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire.”
Christopher Mills, arguing in support of the government’s position, emphasized that “Government agencies are not liable for acts within their federal duties.”
A decision in the case of Curtrina Martin v. United States is expected by the end of June.
Read more: Supreme Court grapples with woman’s case against FBI over wrong home raid
This article is written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence based solely on Washington Times original reporting and wire services. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Ann Wog, Managing Editor for Digital, at awog@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.