Miyoko Solomon v. United States
1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11551, 559 F.2d 309, 43 A.L.R. Fed. 567 (1977)
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States waives sovereign immunity for intentional torts such as false arrest only when committed by 'investigative or law enforcement officers,' defined specifically as officers empowered by federal law to execute searches, seize evidence, or make arrests for violations of federal law.
Facts:
- On September 3, 1974, the Plaintiff was shopping at the Lackland Air Force Base Exchange.
- As the Plaintiff attempted to leave the store, she was intercepted by two security employees of the exchange.
- The security employees suspected the Plaintiff of shoplifting and detained her.
- The employees escorted the Plaintiff to the store office.
- The security employees examined the contents of the Plaintiff's purse.
- No shoplifted items were found in the Plaintiff's possession.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the United States in the U.S. District Court alleging false arrest and false imprisonment under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The United States filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the suit, ruling that the claim was barred by sovereign immunity.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are security employees of a military base exchange considered 'investigative or law enforcement officers' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), thereby waiving the United States' sovereign immunity for their alleged acts of false arrest and imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, security personnel employed by a military exchange do not qualify as 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In interpreting the statute, the Court looked to the intent of Congress, noting that the 1974 amendment to the Act was specifically designed to address 'no-knock' raids by federal narcotics agents. The statute strictly defines the covered officers as those empowered by law to execute searches, seize evidence, or make arrests for violations of Federal law. The Court found that exchange security guards possess none of these specific statutory powers, nor does their scope of employment include enforcing federal laws in this manner. Consequently, the United States retains its sovereign immunity against claims arising from their actions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the government. By limiting the definition of 'investigative or law enforcement officer' to the precise statutory requirements (power to search, seize, or arrest for federal violations), the court prevented the expansion of government liability to covers acts by ancillary security personnel, such as those in military retail stores. The ruling clarifies that not all government employees performing security functions trigger the FTCA's intentional tort exception; only those with specific federal police powers do.
