Ignacio v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5524
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ignacio, a contract security officer at the Pentagon, sued the United States under the FTCA for assault by Pentagon police officer Lane at a Pentagon security checkpoint.
- Lane allegedly threatened Ignacio and pretended to punch him; Lane was suspended for ten days after the incident.
- The district court granted summary judgment, concluding immunity remained because Lane was not engaged in investigative or law enforcement activities and thus outside the FTCA waiver.
- Ignacio argued that the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso waives immunity for any assault by an investigative or law enforcement officer, regardless of activity.
- The Fourth Circuit held that § 2680(h) waives immunity whenever the two plain-language conditions are met, i.e., the actor is an investigative or law enforcement officer and the claim arises from one of the specified torts, without requiring the tort to occur during investigative activity.
- The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings; Judge Diaz concurred, noting concerns about inconsistent treatment but affirming the plain-language interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the law enforcement proviso waive immunity regardless of activity during the tort? | Ignacio: proviso applies to any assault by an officer within the listed torts. | Lane: proviso requires the tort occur in the course of investigative or law enforcement activity. | Yes; waiver applies if two plain-language conditions are met, regardless of activity. |
| Are the two conditions of § 2680(h) satisfied here to waive immunity? | Ignacio contends the officer is investigative/law enforcement and the tort is assault. | United States contends the conditions are not satisfied due to lack of investigative context. | Yes; the conditions are satisfied, triggering waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA sovereign immunity waived for federal torts with exceptions for intentional torts)
- Harris v. United States, 677 F. Supp. 403 (W.D. N.C. 1988) (law enforcement proviso requires officer to commit an intentional tort and arise from listed harms)
- Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868 (3d Cir. 1986) (limitation to torts during searches/arrests questioned)
- Orsay v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 289 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (limited reach of proviso to course-of-investigative/enforcement torts)
- Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2009) (FTCA scope-of-employment considerations.)
- Sunterra Corp., 361 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2004) (absurdity exception to plain-language readings)