Feds off the hook in wreck of Ferrari by FBI agent

Err · Post by **Err** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:01 pm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-mi-fbi-wreckedferrar,0,7734789.story

DETROIT— A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wreck of a $750,000 Ferrari driven by an FBI agent, saying federal law grants immunity if property is being held by law enforcement.

The wreck of the rare 1995 F50 sports car was "certainly unfortunate," but the government cannot be sued in such a case, U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said.

Motors Insurance, based in Southfield, Mich., believes an FBI agent and a prosecutor were out for a joyride when the agent lost control of the Ferrari in a Lexington, Ky., industrial park in 2009. The government has refused to pay for the car.

The car was stolen in Rosemont, Pa., in 2003, eventually recovered and then kept by the FBI in Kentucky as part of an investigation. The government has declined to reveal much about the incident. But in an email that was released to the insurance company, Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson said he was invited for a "short ride" before the Ferrari was to be moved from an impound garage.

The driver, FBI agent Fred Kingston, lost control and the car hit bushes and a small tree, Thompson said.

The insurance company claimed the Ferrari was not actually in custody because the insurer had granted permission for the government to hold the car. The judge disagreed.

"The government's purpose in holding the vehicle was not to create a status of either consent or punitive coercion. ... Rather, the object was to control and preserve relevant evidence," Cohn said in an 11-page decision on Sept. 27.

The insurance company's attorney did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.

I wonder how much this judge got paid for this ruling?

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:54 pm

That's the government for ya. I couldn't describe how pissed I'd be.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:35 pm

Isn't that a conflict of interest? The judge works for the government?!

CaterpillarAssassin · Post by **CaterpillarAssassin** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:02 pm

Pugsley wrote:Isn't that a conflict of interest? The judge works for the government?!

I think it would be only if he stood to gain personally from the judgement.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:08 pm

His employer does!

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:02 pm

probably didn't get a ticket either.

RubberDuckie · Post by **RubberDuckie** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:13 pm

I dont see how they could claim immunity here, unless a "joy ride" was part of government protocol. The joy ride should not be considered government action and the federal agent should be held accountable not the government.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:36 pm

Right. And if he did it on company time.... then what?

CaterpillarAssassin · Post by **CaterpillarAssassin** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:10 am

I agree that if it was a joyride then the driver should be held accountable. This especially the case because it was recovered property. It wasn't seized for illegal activity.

But on the other hand insurance follows the car, and the insurance policy should pay out. Well they probably already did for the theft. So the owner is taken care of regardless. Who would want the car back of it was stolen anyways? I wouldn't.