Can You Sue the Government Under the Federal Tort Claims Act After an FBI Wrong-House Raid?

FBI agents went to the wrong house before dawn

Around 5 a.m. on Oct. 18, 2017, an FBI team meant to search 3741 Landau Lane but entered the Martin family's home at 3756 Denville Trace instead. The homes were three houses apart on different streets, according to the court's opinion. The agents used a flash-bang device, realized the address was wrong and left.

How the case returned to the Eleventh Circuit

The dispute began after an FBI team went to a house in suburban Atlanta in October 2017. The family appealed after a federal district court in Georgia granted summary judgment to the government. In 2025, the Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's first affirmance and sent the case back to address the discretionary-function exception and the state-law requirements for an FTCA claim. The Supreme Court did not decide that the family could recover under the Act.

The Supreme Court said the FTCA provision that allows some intentional-tort claims against law-enforcement officers does not override the separate exception for discretionary government decisions. It also rejected the government's argument that federal law prevented the family's state-law claims from going forward. The Court's 2025 decision sent the unresolved questions back to the Eleventh Circuit.

1. October 18, 2017

   FBI agents seeking a different address entered the Martin family's home.

2. April 22, 2024

   The Eleventh Circuit initially affirmed dismissal of the FTCA claims.

3. June 12, 2025

   The Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded the case.

4. October 7, 2026

   The Eleventh Circuit again dismissed the FTCA claims, reversed qualified immunity on the separate claim against Guerra, and remanded.

What the Federal Tort Claims Act covers

The FTCA lets people seek money from the United States for some harm caused by a federal employee acting within their job, if state law would hold a similar private person responsible. The Act has conditions and exceptions. The statutory framework is not a guarantee that a particular event qualifies.

An FTCA tort claim generally names the United States, not the FBI or an individual employee, under the Act's remedy and substitution rules. A separate constitutional claim, when available, may name an individual officer. That distinction is central to this case and to questions about civil-rights claims.

Why the FTCA claims against the government failed

The main obstacle was the discretionary-function exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). It generally preserves immunity for claims based on a federal employee's discretionary function or duty, even when that discretion is alleged to have been abused. In the Eleventh Circuit's analysis, planning and carrying out the search, including address-verification decisions, involved judgment tied to law-enforcement policy. The court applied its existing precedent to hold that the exception barred these FTCA claims.

That result does not mean the court approved entering the wrong house. The panel treated the alleged navigation error and the planning choices through the statute's immunity test, rather than deciding whether the raid was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The exceptions in the Act include the discretionary-function rule and other limits. The Supreme Court's 2025 interpretation means the rule allowing certain claims over law-enforcement officers' actions does not remove that separate exception.

Why the claim against the agent can continue

The Fourth Amendment claim faced a different question. When deciding whether a claim can continue without a trial, a court must view disputed evidence in the family's favor. Applying that standard, the Eleventh Circuit said a reasonable jury could find the agents had not made reasonable efforts to avoid searching the wrong house. The homes were on different streets and three houses apart, and the record included disputes about pre-raid checks and address information.

The court therefore reversed qualified immunity for Guerra on the remaining Fourth Amendment claim. That defense had allowed the district court to end the claim against him before trial. The appellate court did not decide whether he violated the Fourth Amendment; that question remains open. Its October 7 opinion sends the claim back to the district court and sets no hearing date. Reversal at this stage of the civil-litigation case is not the same as winning.

A concurrence called for a fresh look at the immunity rule

Judge Adalberto Jordan wrote separately, joined by Judges Jill Pryor and Embry Kidd. He agreed with the judgment but urged the full appeals court to reconsider how it applies the rule that can protect discretionary government decisions.

What the ruling changes, and what it does not

The ruling closes the Martin family's FTCA claims against the United States in this case, while allowing the Fourth Amendment claim against Guerra and other agents to continue at this stage. It is a published decision of the Eleventh Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. It does not automatically decide claims arising in other circuits or guarantee that another wrong-house search creates a viable case. A separate Fourth Amendment case about police use of camera records involved a different kind of search, while this ruling joins other federal court disputes over government power.

What to verify after a federal search of the wrong home

A person's options depend on the facts, the legal theory and any deadlines that apply. These records may help a lawyer understand what happened, but do not show by themselves whether a claim can be filed. The FTCA generally requires an administrative claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2675, and § 2401(b) sets filing limits. Juricue provides general legal information, not legal advice, and is not a law firm. Using a contact form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Firms may pay Juricue a commission if a connection is made. A person seeking advice can review legal-help resources and speak with a lawyer about their own situation.

1. Which agency carried out the search, and which employees or contractors were involved?
2. What address and location appear on the warrant, inventory, notice or other paperwork?
3. When did the search occur, and what records, photographs, witness names or property documents preserve the details?
4. Was an administrative claim presented to the appropriate federal agency, and has the agency issued a written response?
5. What filing dates or deadlines might apply to each possible claim?