Don't Let Rights-Violating Federal Agents Dodge Accountability

Plus: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on wax.

The good guys won a welcome victory at the U.S. Supreme Court last week when the justices ruled 9–0 that an innocent family's lawsuit against the federal government over a wrong house raid may now proceed. At the same time, however, the ruling was a depressing reminder that all too many people face all too many legal obstacles when it comes to suing federal agents for misconduct.

Let's start with the good news.

The case of Martin v. United States arose in 2017 when the FBI conducted a predawn raid on Curtrina Martin's Georgia home. Except the agents were at the wrong house. They were supposed to be at a different address on a different block. Their search and arrest warrants were made out for 741 Landau Lane, the location of a suspected gang lair. Yet Martin lived on 756 Denville Trace. That glaring mistake by the federal officers led them to wreck Martin's home and traumatize her family.

So, Martin sued for damage under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). But the lower court tossed out her civil suit, arguing that it was barred by the terms of the FTCA, which only permits such lawsuits under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court's ruling last week in Martin v. U.S. said that the civil suit may in fact move forward under the FTCA, and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Writing in concurrence, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, provided the lower court with some guidance about just why and how the feds should lose the case on remand. "It is hard to see how [FBI Special Agent Lawrence] Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments" that the FTCA actually covers, Sotomayor wrote. In other words, there are not only solid reasons for the lawsuit to move forward, Sotomayor explained, but there are even better reasons for Martin to win and receive compensation.

That's the good news. Now for the depressing part.

Think about the timeline in Martin's case. The feds invaded her home and held her at gunpoint while her terrified seven-year-old son cowered in a different room, all because the officers could not be bothered to perform basic due diligence—are we actually at the right house?—before breaking down the (wrong) door and detonating a flash grenade. This deplorable and entirely avoidable misdeed occurred eight years ago, which means that this family has been fighting an uphill battle for redress and accountability from the government for the better part of a decade. And their fight is still not over yet, even after securing an important win at the highest court in the land.

To say the least, it should not be so hard—and it should definitely not take so long—to hold the government to account for such blatant wrongdoing.

The Martin case is also a dispiriting reminder of the Supreme Court's own indefensible role in shielding rights-violating federal officers from facing justice in other contexts. In Egbert v. Boule (2022), for example, the Supreme Court refused to allow a federal civil rights lawsuit to proceed against a border patrol agent who was facing plausible allegations that he had violated a man's constitutional rights.

The dire result of that ruling, Sotomayor observed in dissent, is that Customs and Border Patrol "agents are now absolutely immunized from liability" from that kind of federal civil rights lawsuit, "no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury." Not exactly a reassuring thing to read about federal immigration enforcement officers these days, is it?

Too many judges have been too deferential for too long in the face of plausible claims of government malfeasance. Hopefully, Martin v. U.S. will someday be remembered for its part in helping to turn the tide in favor of greater accountability.

---

Odds & Ends: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on Wax

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) is an often-imitated but never duplicated horror masterpiece that retains its power to unsettle more than fifty years after it was first released. And it turns out that the film's original score remains wonderfully disquieting too. Last year, the great Waxwork Records, which specializes in issuing pristine new editions of horror and cult movie soundtracks, released The Texas Chain Saw Massacre Original Motion Picture Score "for the first time in any format." I've taken to playing my copy in the background sometimes when I'm writing, and I'm here to say that it adds a pleasing touch of sonic dread to the workday. This album is not for everyone, of course, but if you're a fan of the flick, it's definitely worth a listen.

Comments

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Agreed.
We should hold every thing employee by the hhs, epa, doj, doe, cia, and nsa accountable if they violate the constitution. I recomend execution for treason

[5.56]

I recommend basic education packages tailored to obsolete, can't-keep-up, right-wing rejects.

[bye]

How about holding you accountable. You have already been judge and jury by saying that they have violated rights. I'm on to you.

[SRG2]

The Supreme Court found that the cops had violated rights. It's not just DR.

And every time a cop gets QI, it's an inherent finding of rights violations, just without a remedy.

[bye]

This just in and you just out

Trump Enjoys Majority Support from Black and Hispanic Voters
Over the five polling days between June 8-12, Rasmussen surveyed 1,772 likely voters and found that Trump enjoys an overall 53 percent job approval rating. This includes 54 percent approval from black voters and 53 percent support from Hispanic voters.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Right. Because popularity trumps legality and constitutionality.

Fail, fail, fail.

[See.More]

Right. Because popularity trumps legality and constitutionality.

Well... yes... because democracy is, after all, rule by popular opinion.

/smh

[Stupid Government Tricks]

1. We don't live in a democracy.

2. You are proposing Rule by Men instead of Rule by Law. Rule by Law is a fiction, a myth, but unless you are willing to admit that, you're just another Rule by Mob statist who doesn't give a fig about liberty.

[sarcasmic]

What about the federal agent who murdered Saint Babbitt in cold blood you hypocrite? You can't talk about federal agents without talking about her murder. That means immigration enforcement should have absolute immunity from criminal and civil law.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

You mean officer Byrd who recieved money and an award for the murder and you cheered the blind shoot?

[Chupacabra]

Just don't go after Democrats. They did it first, so it's OK by sarcasmic.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

They did it first but we must be more principled. Be the better party!

[Stupid Government Tricks]

This deference of government judges for government employees was a predictable-in-hindsight result of the Constitution. It was a damned fine first draft, and may still be the best in the world, but judges have been the prime culprits in shirking their duty to knock down unconstitutional laws.

A good start is the 9th and 10th Amendments, which might as well not exist for all the courts recognize them.

Then there's the 2nd Amendment, a second class enumerated right less important than the right to an abortion which was found in the penumbras and emanations of ... something.

The Sedition Act allowed throwing newspaper editors and publishers in prison in 1797, just 7 years after the 1st Amendment guaranteed freedom of the press.

The courts haven't come close to doing their job.

The only solution I can think of is a new amendment allowing any citizen to pay for a jury of 12 random adults to review laws, regulations, and actions of all governments, and throw them out for any reason. No appeal; this is citizens controlling government, and government judges have proven themselves unworthy of any say in the matter.

Of course it will never happen, and if it did, judges would find all sorts of excuses to insinuate themselves into the process.

[sarcasmic]

I still like the idea proposed in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' where the House has two chambers, one to pass laws and one to repeal them. Of course it will never happen because all governments are designed to be one-way ratchets.

[LIBtranslator]

Heinlein also recognized that a small, competent party is better than an easily-infiltrated big-tent monkey cage. The LP could revert to the original Heinlein-inspired platforms, dispense with Vootveeg Fon Meeces-masked Jesus Freak Republicans and again wield 3% to 20% LAW-REPEALING SPOILER VOTE SHARE as whip to herd the looters freedomward. Every new member made it that much more likely that you would be betrayed. Wyoming, dear lady, revolutions are not won by enlisting the masses. Revolution is a science only a few are competent to practice. It depends on correct organization and, above all, on communications." -- Prof Bernardo de la Paz.

[LIBtranslator]

The German, Japanese, Romanian and Italian governments were unratcheted, their pawls removed. Later, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia and half of Germany plus some small fry were wriggled loose from atheist communism back into the loving arms of Christian National Socialism (with water added). Monarchies dwindled from 160 in 1900 to 43 (not counting Trumpanzia) today. Evolution is occurring--though looters struggle to evade it--mainly thanks to Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein and Eric Frank Russell.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

And Timothy Leary

[LIBtranslator]

Whenever someone tries to tire me with political parroting I ask them to name three laws that ought to be repealed. This is a handy test for outing looters, most of whom pretend not to have understood the question, while they struggle to dredge up memorized lies.

[See.More]

Whenever someone tries to tire me with political parroting I ask them to name three laws that ought to be repealed. . .

I think it'd be faster to repeal them all and start over with the basics.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Doesn't solve the problem of government employees looking out for each other. When push comes to shove -- when some outsider tries telling legislators how stupid government is -- the other legislators will back up their own in defense of the whole legislature.

[SRG2]

A good start is the 9th and 10th Amendments, which might as well not exist for all the courts recognize them.

Recall Bork's comment on 9A: "if you had an amendment that says "Congress shall make no" and then there is an inkblot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the inkblot if you cannot read it."

[LIBtranslator]

The May 9, 1931 Pittsburg Post-Gazette reported: LIMIT ON RIGHT OF OFFICERS TO SLAY OPPOSED--Law Institute Does Not Favor Any Change--… Washington May 8, led by George W Wickersham, president of the institute, and Newton D Baker, secretary of war in the Wilson administration, members of the American law institute today went on record in opposition to any limitation on the present rights of police officers to kill or wound in making arrests even for such offenses as violation of the prohibition of blue laws or petty larceny. … Wickersham was recycled by Bert Hoover to lie about Prohibition after the Crash, and protect killers with badges from prosecution.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Provide them with immunity,
and they will act with impunity.

Not at all hard to understand; otherwise they'd make damned certain they had the right address, for starters. And then maybe even adhere to some constitutional standards, if they know they will catch hell if they don't.

[See.More]

Too many judges have been too deferential for too long in the face of plausible claims of government malfeasance.

Color me shocked when the referees and the players are paid by the same franchise, and the referees defer to their own team.

[AT]

his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox

Interesting.

The GPS Constellation that Guerra relied upon is owned and operated by the United States Government. It's relied upon for innumerable things - everything from military operations to stock market controls to navigating in your car's use of google maps.

Is it really negligent to rely on it? (Oooh, and if it is, then arguably doesn't Officer Guerra have a third-party claim against whomever developed his GPS device?) Would it be negligent to rely on a calculator to give you the correct answer to a math problem? Or, looking to the future, will it be negligent to rely on AI for the responses it gives to prompts? Is it really so unreasonable for the average person to rely on such a thing, or is technology so undependable that we need Officer Flatfoot to go check the mailbox (and possibly expose their position)?

And on the flip side, with better (arguably) tech to assist us, would it be MORE negligent to rely on analog solutions rather THAN the digital ones?

Kind of a Luke Skywalker in the Death Star channel type thing. Rely on the targeting computer, or use the force? Which is the more negligent of the two in general, regardless of their result?

It's an interesting legal question. Damon should have asked it, instead of a sob parade about Whoever Martin's tough day.