11th Circuit lets Georgia family sue FBI agent over wrongful raid

An Atlanta mother was held at gunpoint in front of her 7-year-old son after FBI agents broke into their home in 2017.ATLANTA (CN) — An 11th Circuit panel confirmed Wednesday the federal government is largely immune from a Georgia family’s lawsuit over a misdirected FBI raid at their home, but said the agent who led the raid may have violated their constitutional rights.The family says Agent Lawrence Guerra and a SWAT team busted down their door, detonated a flash-bang grenade and held them at gunpoint at 5 a.m. on Oct. 18, 2017 — until another officer stumbled across some mail with the home’s address on it and realized the team had the wrong house.In a 38-page opinion, the three-judge panel reversed the qualified immunity granted to Guerra, and noted the geographical and physical differences between the Cliatt-Martin family’s residence and the one listed in the FBI’s search warrant.“Agent Guerra’s conduct was ‘simply not consistent with a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched,’” the judges wrote.The two homes were three houses away from one another, on opposite sides of the road and separated by a cross street, the judges wrote.Additionally, the street sign at the intersection where the target home is located clearly marks the intersection of Landau Lane and Cranford Drive — not Denville Trace, where the plaintiffs’ home is located.Such plain incompetence has clearly violated the Fourth Amendment in similar cases, the judges wrote.“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could fairly conclude that Agent Guerra failed to engage in reasonable efforts to avoid error, and, therefore, violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights,” the panel added.The panel included U.S. Circuit judges Adalberto Jordan and Jill Pryor, both Barack Obama appointees, as well as U.S. Circuit Judge Embry Kidd, a Joe Biden appointee.They questioned why Guerra threw away his personal GPS after the incident without explanation, when he argued it was what led him to the wrong home.It is also undisputed that Guerra failed to upload site survey photographs to the FBI’s evidence management system and Guerra’s cell phone data is missing for the day he claims to have photographed the site, the judges wrote.Hilliard Toi Cliatt and his partner Curtrina Martin sued Guerra and the United States in September 2019, seeking to hold the government liable for false imprisonment, trespass, assault and battery.When the SWAT team busted down the door to their suburban Atlanta home nearly nine years ago, Cliatt, Martin, and her 7-year-old son hid in a bedroom closet, frightened and unaware of what was happening. Cliatt was dragged from the closet, handcuffed and interrogated while another officer trained his weapon on Martin, who was lying on the floor half-naked.After discovering the address mistake, Guerra later returned to the Cliatt-Martin home, provided FBI contact information and documented the damage to the front door caused by the forcible entry.While Guerra will face the family’s claims, the panel found the United States is protected by sovereign immunity and that none of the 13 carved out exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act apply in this case.Neither the discretionary-function and intentional-tort exceptions held up, the panel said; they shield the federal government from liability as the claims were based on the performance of a discretionary function or duty by a federal agency, even if that discretion was abused.The judges said they have largely extended the discretionary-function exception to the execution of warrants by law enforcement officers in prior cases.“I hope that, at some point, we will convene en banc to re-examine our discretionary-function exception jurisprudence. This case seems like a good vehicle in which to do so,” Jordan wrote in a concurring opinion.The ruling marks the second time the botched raid case has come before the federal appeals court, after the U.S. Supreme Court last year asked it to reexamine whether the family’s negligence or intentional tort claims can proceed.Attorneys representing Guerra did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision, nor did counsel for the Cliatt and Martin.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads