Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a pivotal case involving Trina Martin, a Georgia woman whose home was mistakenly raided by FBI agents. This incident ignited a legal fight against the U.S. government, raising significant questions about the accountability of law enforcement actions.
The raid occurred early in the morning on October 18, 2017, when FBI agents forcefully entered Martin’s residence. Shockingly, they pointed their firearms at both Martin and her then-boyfriend, while their young son was left crying in another room, unaware of the danger unfolding just steps away. Martin, 46, recounts that she felt a profound helplessness as she was unable to protect her child during this terrifying ordeal.
During the raid, agents were reportedly searching for a suspected gang member but tragically misidentified Martin’s home as the target. After realizing their mistake, the FBI agents abruptly exited the property, leaving Martin and her family traumatized.
Martin’s attorney plans to appear before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, advocating for the reinstatement of a lawsuit filed in 2019. This lawsuit accuses the federal government of assault and battery, false arrest, and several other infractions stemming from the raid.
Previously, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2022, a decision upheld by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming deliberations will focus on a crucial question: under what conditions can individuals sue the federal government to seek accountability for law enforcement errors?
Martin’s legal team asserts that Congress enabled such lawsuits in 1974 after prior incidents of wrong-house raids, which left victims with minimal recourse for their grievances. They argue that permitting the dismissal of these lawsuits would effectively silence victims seeking justice after harrowing experiences.
In responses to media inquiries, FBI spokesperson Tony Thomas indicated that the agency is unable to discuss ongoing legal matters. However, the government’s attorneys have presented their argument emphasizing that courts should respect law enforcement’s decision-making process. They contend the agents had conducted due diligence, attempting to verify the correct residence before executing the raid. This perspective differentiates Martin’s case from the no-knock, warrantless entries that had previously prompted legislative reform in the 1970s.
The 11th Circuit largely accepted the government’s stance, affirming that courts should not second-guess what they termed ‘honest mistakes’ made by law enforcement. The lead agent involved in the raid stated that a malfunctioning GPS device misdirected him to Martin’s home. The actual target was reportedly located just a few houses away.
Martin, her boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and their son have since struggled with the emotional aftermath of the raid. Martin expressed her family’s trauma, stating that the incident altered their lives irrevocably. The psychological impact was profound, as she shared with The Associated Press that they would “never be the same—mentally, emotionally, psychologically.”
As a direct result of the raid, Martin stepped back from coaching track, finding the sound of a starting pistol reminiscent of the flashbang grenade the agents used during the break-in. Cliatt, now 54, explained his departure from a long-held truck-driving position due to disruptions in his sleep, saying the highway felt hypnotizing and he feared becoming a liability at work.
Adding to the family’s distress, their son developed severe anxiety following the raid. Martin recounted that he began to exhibit compulsive behaviors, pulling threads from his clothing and peeling paint from walls. Initially, Cliatt feared the ABS agents were intruders attempting a burglary and rushed for a shotgun he had stored in the closet. The looming question still plagues Martin—what if she had faced the agents while armed?
In a Supreme Court brief, Martin’s lawyers assert that the Federal Tort Claims Act should encompass cases like hers involving wrong-house raids. They argue that differing interpretations by various U.S. appellate courts have created inconsistency in legal standards, highlighting the necessity for resolution by the Supreme Court.
After the raid, an FBI SWAT team member removed Cliatt from his hiding place in the closet, placing him in handcuffs. As agents began to assess the situation, they realized Cliatt did not match the suspect’s description. The atmosphere shifted abruptly, leading to a tense silence as the agents recognized their error.
Once confirmed they had raided the wrong house, Cliatt was uncuffed and allowed to return to his home, while agents proceeded to the correct address to apprehend their target. In a later gesture of remorse, the lead agent returned to Martin’s residence, offering an apology and leaving a business card with a supervisor’s contact information. Yet, Cliatt asserted that the family received no compensation from the government, not even for the damage incurred during the raid.
The most harrowing aspect of the incident, according to Martin, was witnessing her son in distress. She articulated her anguish: “When you’re not able to protect your child or at least fight to protect your child, that’s a feeling that no parent ever wants to experience.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications, potentially reshaping the legal landscape concerning law enforcement accountability and the rights of individuals affected by mistaken raids.
This report includes contributions from The Associated Press.
