Torts — FTCA

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Torts — FTCA

Where property was destroyed while detained for criminal investigative purposes, the owner cannot recover from the federal government under the FTCA.

“Despite what an agency publication may say, for purposes of interpreting this federal statute, the ‘ordinary meaning of the words used’ governs what constitutes a detention by a law enforcement officer. See Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 853 (1984) (quoting Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68 (1982)). And ‘the fairest Interpretation’ of ‘“any claim arising in respect of” the detention of goods . . . includes a claim resulting from negligent handling or storage of detained property.’ Id. at 854 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2860(c)). The government presented uncontroverted evidence that Ellis detained the specimens as a law enforcement officer for a criminal investigation and not for purposes of forfeiture. The government’s evidence included sworn deposition testimony, contemporaneous agency investigation reports, an independent report from the local fire inspectors, and the signed consent to search and seize statement from the laboratory facility’s representative. This evidence shows that under any ordinary meaning of the term ‘detention,’ Ellis detained the specimens as a law enforcement officer within § 2680(c). See Kosak, 465 U.S. at 854 (exception for law enforcement detentions covers property storage and handling).”

Affirmed.

11-2895 On-Site Screening, Inc., v. U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gottschall, J., Tinder, J.