Reply Brief — Karen Jimerson, et al., Petitioners v. Mike Lewis

No. 24-473

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

KAREN JIMERSON, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

v.

MIKE LEWIS,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS

ERNEST REYNOLDS III PATRICKJAICOMO

LAW OFFICES OF

Counsel ofRecord

ERNEST REYNOLDS DYLAN MOORE

201 Main St., Suite 600

JARED MCCLAIN

Fort Worth, TX 76102

ANYA BIDWELL

(817) 332-8850

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

901 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 900

Arlington, VA 22203

(703) 682-9320

pjaicomo@ij.org

Counsel for Petitioners

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Reply Argument .................................................................. l

Conclusion ............................................................................ 2

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Dawkinsv. Graham,

50 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 1995) ........................................... 1

Hartsfield v. Lemacks,

50 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995) ..................................... 1-2

Jimerson v. Lewis,

94 F.4th 423 (5th Cir. 2024) .......................................... l

Maryland v. Garrison,

480 U.S. 79 (1987) .......................................................... 1

Navarrov. Barthel,

952 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1991) ......................................... 1

1

REPLY ARGUMENT

Lieutenant Lewis's opposition rests (BIO 4-8) on the

false premise that the Fifth Circuit applied this Court's

decision in Marylandv. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987), to

hold that Lewis acted reasonably under the Fourth

Amendment. It did not. Because it could not.

On appeal, Lewis conceded that his wrong-house

raid was unconstitutional and, thus, unreasonable. Pet.

App. 9a, Jimerson v. Lewis, 94 F .4th 423, 428 (5th Cir.

2024) ("As to the merits, Lewis does not challenge the

district court's analysis of whether defendants violated

plaintiffs' rights under federal law."); Pet. App. 17a

(Dennis, J., dissenting) ("[I]t is undisputed that Lewis

violated the Jimersons' Fourth Amendment rights in executing a SWAT-style entry into their home without a

warrant[.]"). As a result, the opinion below turned exclusively on whether Garrison clearly establishes the

law for wrong-house raids.

The Fifth Circuit held that Garrison does not; it provides only a "general principle." Pet. App. lla. In dissent, Judge Dennis observed that the Fifth Circuit's

opinion created a circuit split. Id. at 18a-21a. Thus, as

we explained (Pet. 13-20), while Garrison does not

clearly establish the law in the Fifth Circuit, it does in

the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Dawkins v.

Graham, 50 F.3d 532, 534 (8th Cir. 1995); Navarro v.

Barthel, 952 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam);

Hartsfieldv. Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950,955 (11th Cir.1995).

Lewis nowhere addresses the Eighth Circuit's decision in Dawkins or the Ninth Circuit's decision in Navarro. He contends only (BIO 4) that there is no circuit

split because the Fifth Circuit's decision "is consistent

2

with" Garrison. While that's incorrect, see, e.g., Pet. 1719, it's also irrelevant to the existence of the split. This

is clear from the decision below, which never compares

Garrison to this case. See Pet. App. lla. It's also clear

from the BIO, which notes (BIO 7) that the Fifth Circuit

held Hartsiieldwas not "indicative of clearly established

law," despite the Eleventh Circuit's reliance on the law

"as dictated by Garrison." 50 F .3d at 955.

We contend-and other circuits agree-that Garrison supplied all that's needed to clearly establish the law

in wrong-house raid cases. The circuits are split over

this important question, and the resolution of the split

will determine the outcome of this case. It will also help

address the apparent problem of unaccountable wronghouse raids in this country. See also Martin v. United

States, petition for cert. pending, No. 24-362 (FTCA

claims barred by Supremacy Clause).

CONCLUSION

The Court should grant the petition. If it does not, it

should summarily reverse the decision below.

Respectfully submitted on December 20, 2024,

ERNEST REYNOLDS III

LAW OFFICES OF

ERNEST REYNOLDS

201 Main St., Suite 600

Fort Worth, TX 76102

(817) 332-8850

PATRICKJAICOMO

Counsel ofRecord

DYLAN MOORE

JARED McCLAIN

ANYA BIDWELL

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

901 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 900

Arlington, VA 22203

(703) 682-9320

pjaicomo@ij.org