We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
LIABILITY AND CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE SUED--TORTS IN GENERAL: THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIM ACT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVISO.
- Authors
Henes, Nicholas
- Abstract
In Millbrook v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held the law enforcement proviso--an exception to the Federal Tort Claim Act's ("FTCA") preservation of sovereign immunity for intentional torts-- applied to torts committed by law enforcement officers regardless of whether the officer was engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity. The Court, granting certiorari to address a division among circuits as to how the proviso should be interpreted, reasoned that a plain reading of the statute's text revealed congressional intent for immunity determinations to depend on officers' legal authority, not the specific activity they were performing during the alleged tort. Thus, under the Court's holding in Millbrook, the question of whether the government has waived sovereign immunity to intentional torts via the law enforcement proviso depends on the powers invested in the officer, not whether the officer was conducting a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. The Court's holding in Millbrook will increase the federal government's liability in regard to torts committed by law enforcement officers, and it leaves certain significant questions unanswered.
- Subjects
UNITED States; GOVERNMENT liability; CONSENT (Law); INTENTIONAL torts; LAW enforcement; UNITED States. Federal Tort Claims Act; MILLBROOK, Kim; UNITED States. Supreme Court; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
North Dakota Law Review, 2013, Vol 89, Issue 2, p341
- ISSN
0029-2745
- Publication type
Article