Solomon v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1703,77-1703 |
| Citation | 559 F.2d 309 |
| Parties | Miyoko SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sam Gross, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jamie Boyd, U. S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before COLEMAN, MORGAN and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff brought suit under § 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (Supp.1976), alleging that security guards employed by a military base exchange had falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned her. On a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the District Court dismissed the suit. The District Court found that the plaintiff's claim was barred by sovereign immunity since under § 2680(h) the United States has waived its sovereign immunity only as to certain intentional, tortuous acts of an investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States and security personnel of an Air Force exchange are not investigative or law enforcement officers within the meaning of § 2680(h). We affirm.
The suit arose out of the following facts. On September 3, 1974, plaintiff was shopping at Lackland Air Force Base Exchange. As plaintiff was leaving the store, she was stopped by two exchange security employees who apparently believed she had been shoplifting. Plaintiff returned with them to the store office. When the contents of plaintiff's purse were examined, no shoplifted items were found.
The sole question for this Court's consideration is whether the United States has waived its sovereign immunity defense to plaintiff's complaint. Prior to March 16, 1974, sovereign immunity was a complete bar to actions based on false arrest and false imprisonment. In 1974, the federal government, through the amending of § 2680, submitted itself to liability where certain of its agents committed certain intentional torts. Section 2680 was amended as follows The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to
(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, "investigative or law enforcement officer" means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.
The issue then becomes one of statutory construction, specifically whether security personnel of the Air Force exchange are "investigative or law enforcement officers" within the meaning of § 2680(h) as amended.
In interpreting statutes, a court's function "is to construe the language so as to give effect to the intent of Congress". United States v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 310 U.S. 534, 542, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 1063, 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1939). The wording of the statute and the legislative history evidence congressional intent. See C. Sands, Sutherland's Statutory Construction § 45.13 (4th ed. 1973). A review of the legislative history reveals that Congress, in response to "no-knock" raids conducted by federal narcotic agents on the wrong dwellings, passed the 1974 amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act to provide compensation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castro v. U.S.
...dwellings, passed the 1974 amendment to the Federal Tort Claim Act to provide compensation [for the victims]." Solomon v. United States, 559 F.2d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 1977). 5. The Government submitted evidence before the district court that: "there are no policies, rules or statutes governin......
-
Gonzagowski v. United States
...scope of their employment, or under color of Federal law, commit (committed) ... false imprisonment, false arrest."Solomon v. United States, 559 F.2d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 1977) Section 2680(h) ’s legislative history thus indicates that Congress did not intend the law enforcement proviso to ap......
-
Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. Sec. Admin.
...Bank of Jackson , 614 F.2d 1004, 1008 (5th Cir. 1980) (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agent); Solomon v. United States , 559 F.2d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam ) (security guard at military exchange). These cases do not speak in terms of "criminal" or "non-criminal" function......
-
Hernandez v. United States
...above), and the narrowly focused, administrative searches conducted by TSA screeners.Fifth, the Fifth Circuit in Solomon v. United States, 559 F.2d 309 (5th Cir.1977) provided a persuasive overview of the legislative intent behind § 2680(h) :A review of the legislative history reveals that ......