Texas SWAT Team Held Innocent Family at Gunpoint After Raiding the Wrong Home
The officers are avoiding accountability after getting qualified immunity.

A Texas SWAT Team raided an innocent family's house in 2019, barging into the family's home and holding them at gunpoint before realizing they were at the wrong address. But when the family sued, officers were granted qualified immunity.
In a request for additional review filed earlier this month, the Institute for Justice (I.J.), a civil liberties law firm, seeks to challenge that, arguing that police had more than enough opportunities to know they were raiding the wrong home.
On an evening in March 2019, a Waxahachie, Texas, SWAT Team, led by Lt. Mike Lewis, burst into Karen Jimerson and James Parks' home. According to legal documents, "Lewis ordered his SWAT team to 'break and rake'" the family's home, "smashing through windows, detonating a flashbang grenade, and kicking down the door with guns drawn."
After causing considerable damage to the family's home, police held them at gunpoint, including the couple's three children. But the officers didn't have a warrant for a no-knock raid on the family's house. Instead, their next-door neighbor was the intended target.
It shouldn't have been difficult to tell which home the officers were supposed to raid—there were major differences in the neighboring houses' appearance. The house police had obtained a warrant for was surrounded by a chain link fence, had a detached garage, and a front porch, and had its address painted to the curb and onto a pole holding up the porch. In contrast, Jimerson and Parks' home had no porch, no detached garage, no fence, and a huge wheelchair ramp leading to the home's front door.
Karen Jimerson sued Lewis in 2020, arguing that his actions violated her family's Fourth Amendment rights. After a lengthy legal battle, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Lewis qualified immunity on appeal, ruling that because he did more than "nothing" to verify that he had the correct house, he was entitled to immunity.
The three-judge panel found, "If an officer takes some steps to identify the correct house before executing the warrant, he is entitled to qualified immunity," I.J. summarized, "even if he fails to employ the information learned in taking these steps."
However, according to I.J., the steps Lewis took to verify the correct address were minimal—"reviewing the warrant, searching a website, speaking with DEA agents, and briefly looking at the Jimersons' house before ordering officers to storm it"—and nearly all occurred before he arrived at the scene of the raid.
"Lewis's decision to order the raid was obviously unconstitutional," I.J. wrote in a document requesting that the case be heard by the full slate of 5th Circuit judges. "All adults know they cannot waltz into a stranger's house without confirming it's the one they have permission to enter."
This case is far from the first time police have barged into the wrong address with disastrous consequences. In 2022, other Texas cops held an innocent couple at gunpoint after raiding the wrong house. In 2018, police in Bexar County, Texas, burst into the wrong address while conducting a no-knock drug raid—and kept searching the home, even after they realized their mistake. Beyond Texas, a 2023 report found that Chicago cops accidentally raided the wrong house almost two dozen times between 2017 and 2020.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
even if he fails to employ the information learned in taking these steps.
I knew it was wrong, had time to correct and did it anyway; is usually grounds for a 1st degree felony, no?
Not when you have Gov-Guns. Then it's just in a day's work.
>>But when the family sued
other than the door frame, what damages?
Lewis ordered his SWAT team to 'break and rake'" the family's home, "smashing through windows, detonating a flashbang grenade, and kicking down the door with guns drawn."
other than property damage, what are the damages?
It's difficult to put into words, so perhaps to better understand that, someone should break into your house and hold you and your children at gunpoint for a while.
okay, but you'd never make it past jury selection. "fear! pay me!" is not a damage model
If you aren’t a cop, pointing a gun at someone without good reason will get you charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
yes, in criminal court.
E Jean Carroll got $88 million for the emotional distress of Trump calling her "crazy". The bar has been lowered and the precedent has been set.
this is hilarious and true and probably the family's best shot.
In what free country is a "raid" something that the people would allow the government to do to them? That's something that pillagers do.
There are no free countries.
We need cops so armed men dressed in black don't break into your house in the middle of your night and hold your family at gunpoint.
But the officers didn't have a warrant for a no-knock raid on the family's house. Instead, their next-door neighbor was the intended target.
So the Waxahachie SWAT Team is recruiting from DoorDash now?
Was gonna say, they must be trained in address locating by the USPS.
But when the family sued, officers were granted qualified immunity.
If I ventilate the first three home invaders, do I get any kind of immunity?
No, you get riddled to death like Scarface because in no uncertain terms are they going to not fill every inch of that house with lead ... reloading several times in the process.
Have you seen the third season of “True detective “? I mean, the guy dies, after killing about 20 people.
So presidential immunity is not that far fetched.
As long as there is "qualified immunity", there will continue to be little concern as to whether or not a serious mistake is being made.
Qualified immunity means cops are not held accountable. According to Pierson v. Ray immunity is in our law because, well because it's always been there, Kings enjoyed it and why shouldn't judges, politicians & cops? Cops should be held to a higher standard, not lower.
You really need to stop writing these stories, Emma. Because you suck at them. It's like you put in ZERO effort to learn ANYTHING about any aspect of it before you start rattling off your canned narrative garbage.
First - understand that Plaintiff's lawyers (the IJ) offered no meaningful legal argument for their position. This is key: "Here, the plaintiffs have not cited authority demonstrating that Lewis’s conduct violated clearly established law."
Second, this is grossly misleading:
However, according to I.J., the steps Lewis took to verify the correct address were minimal
And according to THE COURT, quote, "Lewis was far more careful than the officers in the two opinions cited to us as showing he violated clearly established law."
So, when Emma complains about the actions by the cops (citing IJ's claim), it's basically Monday Morning Quarterbacking. But more importantly, it's not even MMQ'ing the correct issue.
The IJ argued a certain standard for measuring such things based on weak caselaw they used to establish said standard. THEY set the bar. And the Court came back at them and said, effectively, "Then by the standard YOU set here, your case clearly doesn't hold water."
So... I mean, what's your argument here? That the judges should have made the Plaintiff's case for them? Like, sua sponte or something?
What's truly amazing about this article though is that at no point does Emma realize that the IJ and the case they presented is to blame for this result. Instead she just mindless parrots the IJ's failed legal argument.
And here's the thing - their might not actually BE caselaw that supports the IJ's position. Giving IJ the benefit of the doubt as to their competency and thoroughness, maybe they were trying to argue a standard that genuinely doesn't exist. In which case, this article quickly reduces to, "Well I just don't like the law." *eyeroll*
Meaning that, instead of chasing after a paycheck via tort judgment from the Court; what they SHOULD have been doing is investigating the weakness of the qualified immunity standards and petitioning the Legislature for better laws.
You're upset at all the wrong people, Emma. By a generous take, the IJ took this up with the wrong branch of government. By a less generous take, they phoned in their case. You should be pointing the finger at them.
But you don't care. You just vomit up the clickbait headline and then recite a one-sided narrative on a subject you learned nothing about.
Do you really think anyone's going to pay to read this tripe when you go R+?
Her beef is not being able to hold police officers personally liable for this kind of gross error by the entire department and the judge authorizing the warrant. That is all that matters, the ability to financially ruin individual police officers in order to discourage people from taking that job. On the other hand,the department, the city should be liable for this kind of mistake.
The problem is that Emma just mindlessly parrots the IJ stance on things, despite the fact that - by all appearances - they screwed the pooch on this from the get go.
She alleges the problem is police procedure. But the court made it very clear that, even by the standards the Plaintiff's claimed, that procedure warranted qualified immunity.
Emma is too stupid and lazy and intellectually dishonest (if not devoid) to go actually learn anything about qualified immunity, or the case law on the subject - so she just barfed up an anti-cop narrative article and hoped her audience of baby birds would open their mouths to receive it.
Her "beef," as you put it, is prejudice. Not reason. Or Reason.
Please. Procedures were followed. I was just following orders.
They had no reason to conduct a raid on said proper and did so.
Simplistic, ignorant, and clearly having considered none of the facts.
Don't spit your reflexive prejudices at me, boy. If you have an argument to make, then make it. Else you're just banging on your keyboard like a petulant whelp.
I'm certain that you have to make a good faith effort to hit the right house. It doesn't sound like Lewis did anything.
And, if you don't have a "no-knock" clause in the warrant, you must knock and announce your presence and authority.
Knock and announce is a joke -
Police Police - as the battering ram hits the door and the flashbang is tossed thru the window.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly, even without qualified immunity, it's not the like officers would have to pay a judgement. The department (i.e. the taxpayers) would still be the ones on the hook?
The department wouldn't be "on the hook" legally, but you can bet that they would step up and pay the judgement voluntarily.
Shouldn’t the headline read “Waxahachie Swat Team”, unless this was the Texas Rangers? Is it just me or does Reason seem to have a hard on for some states? Why not just say “US Swat Team”? That being said at the very least the Lt. should be fired for gross negligence. Not sure being able to sue him is that big of a deal, as others have stated the City would end up paying anyway.
My big question is where is the Federal office of civil rights when stuff like this happens? They only seem to get involved when they can get a big headline; they waste time charging those who have gotten life in prison or the death penalty already but don’t go after people like this who need to be charged to the max to send a message to other cops…at least make an effort.
I doubt that most people will know where Waxahachie is. If not for the Renaissance Fair, I wouldn't be able to direct you to the city myself.
Not my point, they seem to put state names when the incident occurs in certain states instead of the actual jurisdiction who is responsible more than others. Just a little bit of bias I have noticed, like they put that snarky “baselessly claimed” note only when referring to some people.
One question not mentioned is whether the department paid for the actual damages incurred. If so, then I'm not entirely convinced that it was a civil rights violation.
Yes, they messed up. Big time. But was it actually negligence? It's not like they raided a house across town. They misread the map and description and were one house over. We cannot demand perfection every time.
Now, my defense of the department will end if they didn't replace the doors, windows, and any actual damages their mistake caused. But with the information as given, I'm not convinced that it rises to the level of a civil rights violation
Sorry but that dog just won’t hunt, when you are responsible for a raid into someone’s home with armed officers that may or may not shoot the first thing that pops up then yes you can demand perfection every time. Not just that the description of the house was wrong but the address was marked on the house and I assume was on the search warrant. As for civil rights violations, there have been officers who have been charged and convicted for doing much less, case in point an officer who simply stood a post and kept bystanders away from Floyd was convicted of civil rights violations. These guys actually broke into and destroyed an innocent persons home and held them at gunpoint. If you put a few of these commanders in prison for not doing their jobs and at least making sure they have the correct address before they burst in guns a blazing then maybe the next guy will take a minute and confirm the address before they launch the raid.
Now, my defense of the department will end if they didn’t replace the doors, windows, and any actual damages their mistake caused.
They did. Quote: "Lewis also coordinated with a glass company to make repairs and remained on the scene until 1:30 a.m."
Thank you. I missed that part.
And that, RockSteve, is the difference. These cops actively attempted to right the wrongs that they did. Perfection is not required. Being a half-decent person is. It's the difference between accident and negligence.
Doing a SWAT raid on the wrong house is inexcusable. Period. It doesn't matter how apologetic they were afterwards.
Every civil harm is excusable. That's why we have a civil justice system - to sort out disputes and provide restitution when warranted.
If you're still pissing and moaning after that, then you're just being a baby.