An FBI agent who turned over potentially exculpatory evidence to a prosecutor fulfilled her non-discretionary duty in doing so, and the federal government could not be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b)(1) and 2671 et seq. for alleged wrongful prosecution of the plaintiff for engaging in a sexual act with a person under the age of twelve on an Indian reservation. The plaintiff's conviction for the offense was overturned based on the prosecutor's failure to turn that exculpatory evidence over to the defense. Once the FBI agent presented the exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor, however, her actions satisfied due process. Further, a private party in Montana, the location of the case, who acted as the FBI agent did, would not have been liable for the prosecutor's subsequent failure to turn over the material to the defense. Gray v. Dept. of Justice, No. 07-35171, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9597 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     Federal officers were not shown to have used excessive force against an arrestee, so that the federal government had no liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680. The court found, applying Wyoming law, that the force used during the arrest was justified, and that any injuries suffered were "incidental" to the reasonable use of force. The court also found no evidence of negligence by the officers. The U.S. was entitled to a "common-law privilege" defense protecting police officers from liability for using reasonable force during a lawful arrest. The court also found that, even if the force used was found to be unreasonable, comparative fault by the arrestee in resisting the lawful arrest was over 50%, which would bar any liability for the government under Wyoming law. The plaintiff could not claim that his arrest was unlawful, as his attorney had previously agreed that no such claim was presented. Fienhold v. U.S.A., No. 07-8058, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8597 (10th Cir.).
     U.S. government was not liable for alleged damages to hundreds of handguns and long guns, as well as ammunition and packaging seized from a man's storage spaces by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) under search warrants. A detention of goods exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) barred the claim. Also, another waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c)(1)-(4) only applied to property seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture, and, in this case, while forfeiture was a possibility for some of the weapons, criminal investigation was also a legitimate purpose of the seizure of the guns. Foster v. U.S.A., No. 06-56843 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8125 (9th Cir.).
     A federal trial judge has awarded $101.7 million against the U.S. government on claims that the FBI was "responsible for the framing of four innocent men" for murder, causing them to serve decades for a crime they did not commit. Four men falsely convicted of a 1965 gangland murder, and their estates and families asserted claims against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346 and 2671-2680 for malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The trial court rejected the argument that the U.S. government was entitled to immunity based on the discretionary function exception to liability in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a). The FBI's alleged conduct in knowingly allowing an informant to provide perjurious testimony in the murder trial, failing to reveal exculpatory evidence, and failing to disclose information about the actual murderers for a period of thirty years was unconstitutional and violated its own rules, the judge ruled. The court found that the FBI's conduct was the cause of the convictions, and that the conduct met the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as the alleged actions violated all standards of decency and were intentional. The family members of the convicted persons were entitled to damages, under Massachusetts law for bystanders' intentional infliction of emotional distress. $1 million for each year of imprisonment was awarded to the men falsely convicted, or their estates. The minor children of the convicted men, and three of the wives of the convicted men were also awarded damages, as were an adult child of one of the men, and a wife who divorced one of the men. Two of the four men are now deceased, while two of them are still alive. Limone v. U.S., No. 02cv10890-NG, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 54224 (D. Mass.). [Editor's Note: The total damages awarded were $101.7 million].
     Secret Service officers who stopped a motorist based on an outstanding arrest warrant, and seized a bag including four prescription eyeglasses from his vehicle were within the definition of "any other law enforcement officer" in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c) of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The U.S. government, therefore, was protected from liability by this statutory provision barring liability for "detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer," on the motorist's claim concerning the alleged failure of the Secret Service to subsequently return the eyeglasses. Perez v. U.S., No. 06-CV-1508, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36843 (D.N.J.).
     An arrestee's claims for alleged unlawful detention accrued at the latest in 1996, so that claims he asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 2004, were barred by a two-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2401(b). Feurtado v. Dunivant, No. 06-56496, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14238 (9th Cir.).
     Arrestee's claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act and for federal postal employees' alleged violations of his federal civil rights accrued at the date that the alleged wrongful prosecution of him ended, so that they were barred by an applicable two-year statute of limitations. Braunstein v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 05-16390, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8831 (9th Cir.).
     The Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2679(b)(1) provides federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims for actions taken in the course of their official duties, and gives the Attorney General the power to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident. Once that certification takes place, the U.S. government is substituted as the defendant instead of the employee, and the lawsuit is then governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. Additionally, if the lawsuit began in state court, the Westfall Act provides that it shall be removed to federal court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusive" for purposes of the removal. Once the certification and removal take place, the federal court has the exclusive jurisdiction over the case, and cannot decide to send the lawsuit back to state court. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that certification can take place under the Westfall Act in instances where the federal employee sued claims, and the Attorney General also concludes, that the incident alleged in the lawsuit never even took place. Osborn v. Haley, No. 05-593, 2007 U.S. Lexis 1323. [N/R]
     Motorist injured when his car was rear-ended by a car which had itself been rear-ended by a vehicle driven by an FBI agent was entitled to $651,037.01 in damages, including $100,000 for pain and suffering, future lost wages of $408,562 based on diminished earning capacity, and other damages for medical expenses and property damages. The award was made in a lawsuit for negligence againstthe FBI agent under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 2671-2680, and the court ruled that such negligence was the cause of the accident. Roark v. U.S., No.6:05CV00041, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74784 (W.D. Va.). [N/R]
     In police officer's lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680, against an IRS agent who obtained his arrest and prosecution, summary judgment was properly granted on false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims. A presumption of probable cause which arose from the arrestee's indictment was not rebutted for purposes of the malicious prosecution claim when there was no evidence that the IRS agent lied in his testimony before a federal grand jury. Conrad v. U.S., No. 04-15402, 447 F. 3d 760 (9th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Wife could not pursue her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. government for the death of her husband, allegedly murdered by FBI informants, since he failed to exhaust her available administrative remedies before filing her lawsuit. Barrett v. U.S., No. 05-1905, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 22745 (1st Cir.). [N/R]
     An arrestee's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against federal prosecutors and a postal inspector under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b), arising out of his arrest, were subject to a two year statute of limitations in New York. Levine v. Gerson, No. 05-0748, 164 Fed. Appx. 64 (2d Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     In a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and an agent of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for false arrest and malicious prosecution of a man for allegedly falsely obtaining government funds for disaster relief assistance after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(g) provides that a lawsuit against the U.S. government is the exclusive remedy, barring New York state law claims against the agent. Applying New York law to the claims against the U.S. government, the plaintiff could not prevail on his false arrest claim when his arrest was carried out under a valid arrest warrant, and could not recover on his malicious prosecution claim when he failed to show that the prosecution against him was started with "actual malice." Lewis v. U.S., No. 03 Civ. 10220, 388 F. Supp. 2d 190 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Tribal police officer responding to a domestic dispute between two non-Indians at a casino on tribal land was not engaged in enforcing federal law, and therefore he and his police chief could not pursue their claim for indemnification for claims of assault and battery against them under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(h). The federal government has not waived its sovereign immunity against indemnification claims in such circumstances. Herbert v. U.S., No. 05-30223, 438 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     In negligence claim brought by driver under Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-80, for injuries allegedly suffered during accident involving a car driven by an FBI agent, the driver did not suffer "serious" injury as required for recovery under New York's No-Fault Insurance Law. The driver had pre-existing cervical and spinal damage and permanent injuries already in existence at the time of a car accident did not qualify as "serious injuries" under New York law applicable to FTCA lawsuit. Jones v. U.S., No. CV-04-1276, 408 F. Supp. 2d 107 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
     Tribal police officer engaged in an attempt to enforce tribal law was not a federal law enforcement officer within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680, and the defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit brought under that statute for alleged excessive use of force. LaVallie v. United States, No. A1-04-075, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. N.D. 2005). [N/R]
     Motorist who was run over by Indian tribal police vehicle while hiding on the ground in alfalfa field after abandoning vehicle at the conclusion of high-speed chase could not recover damages under Federal Tort Claims Act. His own negligence in eluding officers and hiding in the field contributed to his injuries, barring recovery under applicable South Dakota law. Good Low v. US, No. 05-1114, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24517 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
     FBI and its personnel were not liable for death of murder victim killed after self-proclaimed bank robber called FBI offering to turn himself in, and allegedly killed the victim the following day after his call was purportedly ignored. Liability was barred under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a), as the decision as to how to respond to the phone call was discretionary. McCloskey v. Mueller, No. CIV.A.04-CV-11015, 385 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D. Mass. 2005). [N/R]
     Lawsuit against the U.S. government for alleged FBI complicity in the organized crime murder of a man purportedly ordered by two high-level FBI mob informants was barred because the victim's spouse failed to file an administrative claim with the FBI for over two years after she should have known, from publicly available information, that she had a possible claim. Callahan v. U.S , No. 04-2466 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22395 (1st Cir.). [2005 LR Dec]
     Dismissal of plaintiff's suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act is affirmed where a reasonable factfinder could conclude that plaintiff has failed to show that defendants assaulted or maliciously prosecuted him under Ohio law. Harris v. U.S., No. 04-3520, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19058 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Undercover federal drug agent acted reasonably in fearing for her life and shooting a suspect participating in an attempted armed robbery during a drug transaction. U.S. government not liable under Federal Tort Claims Act for agent's actions which caused suspect to be paralyzed from the waist down. Morales v. US, No. 03-1743, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 10082 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Liquor store owners stated a viable possible claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) based on alleged conduct of FBI agents who allegedly passed their names on to racketeers after they reported to police that they were victims of extortion by the racketeers, resulting in damage to their businesses. The racketeers were allegedly being protected by the FBI agents as confidential informants, and the agents acted within the scope of their employment under the FTCA in taking their alleged actions. The actions did not come within the "discretionary function" exemption to the FTCA, because the agents had "no room" for the exercise of discretion under extensive FBI regulations concerning how to handle confidential informants. The claims asserted, however, were time barred under the applicable statute of limitations, so the complaint was dismissed. Rakes v. United States, No. CIV.A.02-10480, 352 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D. Mass. 2005). [N/R]
    Federal Tort Claims Act did not provide jurisdiction for claim, by subsequently exonerated arrestees initially convicted of bank robberies, that FBI agents negligently failed to properly file and disclose conflicting eyewitness identifications of other suspects, resulting in their wrongful conviction. Wisconsin state law would not impose liability for negligence on private persons in similar circumstances, so there could not be liability for the U.S. government. Bolduc v. U.S., No. 03-2081, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4718 (1st Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
     Probable cause existed for arrest and prosecution of man for bank robbery after which he was identified as the robber from surveillance photographs by his former wife and subsequently identified by a bank teller as the robber from a clear photograph of six men. Trial court therefore properly dismissed malicious prosecution claim against U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346 and 2671. Waller v. United States, No. 03-20877, 100 Fed. Appx. 254 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
    Prior dismissal of a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the alleged intentional destruction of computer equipment and data seized during the execution of a search warrant did not bar a subsequent civil rights lawsuit against the federal agents involved in the search. Hallock v. Bonner, No. 03-6221, 387 F.3d 147 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
     Activities of the U.S. Marshals Service while attempting to provide protection to a federal judge and his home involved the exercise of judgment, bringing their actions within the discretionary function exception to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. This entitled the U.S. government to dismissal of a claim under the Act by neighboring homeowners seeking money damages for alleged trespass, nuisance, and invasion of privacy committed by the Marshals in the course of carrying out their protective function. The judge was given 24-hour-a-day protection at his residence because of threats to him resulting from his handling of terrorism related court cases. Callahan v. United States, 329 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Postal inspector's undercover vehicle qualified as a "police vehicle" under a New York statute granting qualified exemptions from traffic laws from traffic laws when engaged in emergency operations. The defendant inspector did not act in "reckless disregard" of others' safety in following a person under surveillance through a red light. The U.S. government was not, therefore, liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., for injuries to another motorist in an ensuing traffic accident. Hodder v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
    Wife who was attacked and injured by her husband when he escaped from the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service after allegedly violating a domestic violence order of protection could not pursue her lawsuit against the Marshals Service and U.S. government when she failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346, 2671 et seq. She also could not pursue federal civil rights claims against federal officials under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the absence of any allegation that they acted under color of state law. Cureton v. U.S. Marshal Service, 322 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
     Woman's claim that she was raped by a military recruiter on U.S. government premises did not entitle her to pursue liability claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b)(1) and 2680(h). Claims for alleged negligent hiring and supervision of alleged assailant were barred because they arose from alleged intentional misconduct, coming within an "intentional tort" exclusion from the FTCA's waiver of governmental immunity. Verran v. United States, 305 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court finds that plaintiff who was awarded $87,000 in damages for alleged battery by two police officers at veterans' hospital was improperly also awarded $49,000 in attorneys' fees. While evidence showed, for purposes of award under Federal Tort Claims Act, that officers acted "wantonly," the U.S. government did not act "wantonly" in presenting a defense against the plaintiff's claims. Stive v. U.S., No. 03-2151, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8346 (7th Cir.). [2004 LR Jun]
     Police officer's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies barred his bringing a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2675(a) against federal officers seeking emotional distress damages for their alleged failure to protect him from reprisals by targets of an investigation of police corruption. Russo v. Glasser, 279 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     In a lawsuit brought by the family of an man shot and killed by gang members after it was allegedly negligently revealed that he was an FBI informant, the right to bring the lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671-2680, accrued at the latest on the date when family members attended hearings at which the relationship between FBI agents and gang members was revealed and widely reported in the media. Accordingly, the court holds that the lawsuit should be dismissed as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. McIntyre v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
     U.S. government was not responsible, under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a) for the alleged intentional misconduct of informants in a case where the indictment against the plaintiff for conspiring to transfer human organs from executed Chinese prisoners for human transplantation was dismissed. Such liability under the statute was not possible when the informants were not employees acting within the scope of their employment and were not investigative or law enforcement officials. Plaintiff also failed to show that the conduct of federal agents involved in the case fell outside the scope of the "operative discretionary function exception" to liability under the statute for law enforcement actions involving an element of discretion. Wang v. U.S., No. 02-6123, 61 Fed. Appx. 757 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     A factual issue existed as to whether a federal employee was acting within the scope of his employment when his vehicle struck a motorist's car as he was driving his own car at the time and made no effort to attend purported work-related meeting after the collision despite the drivable condition of his vehicle. Plaintiff could therefore challenge U.S. government's attempts to substitute itself as the proper defendant and have the case dismissed for the plaintiff's alleged failure to pursue administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) within two years of the accident. Ware v. Doane, 227 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D. Me. 2002). [N/R]
     Former deputy U.S. Marshal's claim that the CIA and Bureau of Narcotics tested psychoactive drugs on him without his consent or knowledge was not barred by the intentional tort exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., since they could be interpreted as asserting claims for negligent supervision. Plaintiff's claims also were not barred by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8116 et seq. since his allegation that he was involuntarily given LSD while attending a holiday party at the Post Office as part of a CIA experiment did not relate to dangers created by his employment. Ritchie v. U.S.A., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2002). [N/R]
     Arrestee's claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress growing out of his alleged wrongful arrest by the U.S. Air Force and military police officers had to be dismissed, as sovereign immunity for those claims were not waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(h). Tinch v. United States, 189 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Md. 2002). [N/R]]
    328:62 Federal government was not liable for officer's alleged rape of female motorist when officer's actions were outside of the scope of his employment; federal appeals court rejects "apparent authority" as a basis for liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Primeaux v. U.S., No. 97-2691, 181 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1999).
     329:72 An arrestee's failure to challenge a forfeiture proceeding concerning $11,000 he gathered to use for bail money precluded him from asserting, in a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit, that he had a property interest in the money at the time he claimed it was "illegally seized." Bazuaye v. U.S., 41 F.Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 1999).
     310:151 Federal drug agents' actions in arresting the "wrong man" with the same name as that stated in an arrest warrant was protected by the "discretionary function" exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act; federal government not liable even if agents acted negligently in mistaken identity case before and after serving warrant. Mesa v. United States, 123 F.3d 1435 (11th Cir. 1997).
     283:103 Federal officers' arrest of woman with same name, social security number, birthdate, birthplace, and abdominal scar as suspect sought in arrest warrant was objectively reasonable Rodriguez v. US, 54 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 1995).
     275:165 Trial judge did not violate plaintiff's Seventh Amendment jury trial right by awarding a lower amount against the U.S. government on Federal Tort Claims Act claim than the amount a jury assessed as damages in a federal civil rights claim brought against arresting federal officer Engle v. Mecke, 24 F.3d 133 (10th Cir. 1994).
     U.S. government liable for $779,30565 to estate and family of woman murdered by indicted federal felon released from custody in order to work as an informant for the INS; INS agents failed to adequately supervise informant, to warn murder victim or local police department of his release, or to take action to apprehend him Marin v. United States, 814 F.Supp. 1468 (E.D. Wash 1992).