Today the Supreme Court heard two oral arguments. One, Bowman v. Monsanto, I covered last week. The other, Millbrook v. U.S. was argued this morning and is about whether the Federal government waives sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed by security guards.
Millbrook was an inmate at Lewisberg Federal Prison. While incarcerated, Millbrook alleged in a complaint that he was sexually assaulted, wherein he was forced to perform oral sex on Correctional Officer Pealer while Correctional Officer Edinger held his neck and Correctional Officer Gimberling stood watch by the door.
Millbrook filed suit against the Federal government alleging that he has a right to recover from the government for the assault and battery committed on him by Officer Pealer and the false imprisonment claim he has against Officers Edinger and Gimberling.
the United States is generally not liable for intentional torts of its employees except for certain intentional torts committed by investigative or law enforcement officers. Under the afore-linked law, it seems Mr. Millbrook’s claim is clear. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the “intentional tort” recovery available to inmates as only applying in the case of an arrest, search, or seizure. So, Mr. Millbrooks’ appeal to the Supreme Court should settle whether a claim is statutorily barred when an inmate, not an arrestee, is forcibly sexually assaulted by one Officer while another holds the inmate down and yet another watches the door.
Police misconduct is shamefully common. Here in Macon, a police officer shot an unarmed detainee to death. Hopefully, Mr. Millbrooks’ suit will resolve that, whether a person is under arrest or incarcerated in prison, a person’s rights to not be brutalized by law enforcement are uniformly preserved.