For the professional edge in your day-to-day practice, rely on the most timely, objective reporting on significant developments, trends, and emerging patterns in criminal law today—Criminal Law...
Feb. 24 — The FBI didn't have a duty to notify local law enforcement about an extremist group's planned home invasion that led to the killing of a young girl and her father, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Feb. 24.
Even though FBI guidelines call for the agency to share credible information of serious criminal activity not within its jurisdiction, the lawsuit here founders because individual field agents had discretion to make a judgment call about releasing the information based on its source, its credibility and whether immediate action was called for, the court said in an opinion by Judge Jay S. Bybee.“Even if an agent receives information that is credible and suggests serious criminal activity, an agent may choose not to disclose information based on his consideration of the possible effects of disclosure, such as the effect of disclosure on an informant, other individuals, or an ongoing investigation.” Judge Jay S. Bybee
“Even if an agent receives information that is credible and suggests serious criminal activity, an agent may choose not to disclose information based on his consideration of the possible effects of disclosure, such as the effect of disclosure on an informant, other individuals, or an ongoing investigation,” the court said.
The ruling demonstrates how broadly courts interpret the exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act, which makes federal law enforcement officials immune from liability whenever they are performing a “discretionary function or duty.”
The sole survivor of the attack, Gina M. Gonzalez, sued the FBI, arguing that an informant told federal agents that members of the “Minutemen American Defense,” an armed activist group that opposes illegal immigration and patrols the U.S.-Mexico border, were planning to raid a house they believed was occupied by a drug smuggler and that he even gave the FBI a map.
The district court dismissed the claim and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, saying that the FBI guidelines for sharing information with local law enforcement weren't mandatory and that, regardless, the discretionary function exception to the FTCA gave the agents immunity because those guidelines say they have room to use their discretion when deciding whether information should be disclosed.
“As the Guidelines make evident, any agent choosing whether to disclose information must weigh the credibility and seriousness of the threatened criminal activity against the possible risks—to an informant, if disclosure might reveal his cooperation with the government; to an intended victim, if disclosure might put him in greater danger; to other potential victims, if disclosure might also endanger them; or to ongoing investigations, if disclosure might jeopardize their success,” it said.
The court accepted the government's argument that it didn't need to prove that the agents here actually exercised that discretion. All that matters, it said, is that they had the freedom to do so.
The discretionary function exception applies so long as the challenged decision is one to which a policy analysis could apply.
Judge John B. Owens joined the opinion, but Judge Marsha S. Berzon dissented, arguing that the guidelines were mandatory and that the government couldn't take advantage of the discretionary function exemption because there was no indication that the agents made any judgment call about alerting local authorities.
Indeed, she noted, the informant gave the FBI a map, drawn by the leader of the planned attack, showing the approximate location of the house to be invaded, but the FBI “misplaced” the map.
Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally PLC argued for Gonzalez. Steve Frank, of the Department of Justice, Washington, argued for the government.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lance J. Rogers in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)