AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defenses: Absolute Immunity
The two plaintiffs were arrested for an accusation of fraud that was mistakenly reported and almost immediately retracted. One of them was also briefly incarcerated. They sued a police officer and prosecutor who, at different stages of the criminal case, allegedly learned that no crime had taken place and yet failed to take any steps to withdraw an arrest warrant. Because there was no established duty to act under these circumstances, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Further, under Virginia state law, only the prosecutor, rather than the officer, could move to dismiss an issued arrest warrant. The prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity, since the decision whether or not to withdraw an arrest warrant was intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. State law claims, however, were dismissed in federal court without prejudice to the ability of the plaintiffs to reassert them in state court. Safar v. Tingle, #16-1420, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 10114 (4th Cir.).
A sheriff’s officer used a confidential
informant to make a controlled buy of marijuana as part of a county-wide
drug-bust operation. A warrant was issued for the plaintiff’s arrest as a
result, and she turned herself in, but the charges were dismissed because of
misidentification. She sued for malicious prosecution, claiming that the
officer prepared a misleading police report as well as giving false grand jury
testimony identifying her as the seller of the drugs. While the trial court
denied the officer both absolute and qualified immunity, a federal appeals
court reversed on the absolute immunity issue. The officer’s absolute
immunity defense presented a question of first impression about how the U.S.
Supreme Court’s provision of absolute immunity for grand jury witnesses in Rehberg
v. Paulk, #10-788, 132 S.Ct. 149 (2012), intersected with the Sixth Circuit’s
requirement that an indicted plaintiff asserting malicious prosecution present
evidence that the defendant provided false testimony to the grand jury. The
court concluded that Rehberg’s absolute immunity for false grand jury testimony
precluded the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim because she could not
rebut the indictment’s presumption of probable cause without using his grand
jury testimony. Sanders v. Jones, #15-6384, 845 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2017).
A courtroom marshal was
not entitled to absolute immunity on excessive force claims by two bail
enforcement agents removed from a court room at a judge's request. He was not
performing a judicial function, and allegedly used force in excess of what the
judge commanded and the Constitution allows. He was, however, entitled to
qualified immunity from liability, since there was then "chaos" in
the court room and undisputed evidence that at least one of the two plaintiffs
was intent on disobeying the court's instructions. It was not "beyond
debate" that the marshal used an unreasonable level of force. Brooks v. Clark
County, #14-16424, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12510 (9th Cir.).
After a neighbor placed
a deteriorated unlicensed trailer on his property, a man fixed and painted it,
believing it to be abandoned. The trailer later disappeared, and then was found
by a detective in a ditch. The detective suspected that the property owner had
stolen the trailer and used it to transport lawn mowers stolen from another
man's property during a burglary. The detective obtained warrants for the
collection of DNA samples and fingerprints, and a search of the suspect's
property. Despite the fact that no evidence implicating the suspect in any
crime was found during the search, the detective and another detective who
assisted him told an assistant state's attorney that he should be charged. The
prosecutor swore out an affidavit for an arrest warrant, despite having no
personal knowledge, relying on the detectives. After charges were dismissed,
the arrestee sued the prosecutor and detectives. The prosecutor was not
protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity as he acted as a witness rather
than a state advocate in swearing to the truth of the facts used to obtain the
warrant. The prosecutor and the two detectives were also not entitled to
qualified immunity from false arrest claims, as the lawsuit complaint permitted
a reasonable inference that they all furnished false information in order to
obtain the arrest warrant. Olson v. Champaign County, #12-3742, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 7143 (7th Cir.).
A man who previously worked as a confidential
drug informant sued a DEA agent and city police for false drug charges
allegedly brought against him, claiming malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, and deprivation of (and conspiracy to deprive him of) his
constitutional rights on the basis of race or color. The DEA agent was entitled
to absolute immunity for his allegedly false grand jury testimony against the
plaintiff. The alleged cooperation between the DEA agent and the city police
did not support an inference that they acted for an improper motive, and no
discriminatory animus was shown. Abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and
racial discrimination claims were all rejected. Morales v. City of New York,
#13-2126, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9157 (2nd Cir.).
A man who spent 20 years on death row for a
murder conviction was granted release because the prosecutor had violated his
obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence. During an attempted
reprosecution, the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence continued, and the
prosecutor failed to alert either the defense or the court that the key
prosecution witness had died. The court barred the state from further
prosecution efforts based on extraordinary circumstances. The state conviction
was never vacated, but the man's release was granted by habeas corpus relief. A
federal appeals court held that the prosecutors had absolute prosecutorial
immunity from civil liability for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. It
further ruled that the complaint's allegations were insufficient to establish
that there was an official county policy of violating the constitutional rights
of criminal defendants. A police detective had no obligation to make
disclosures to the defense, and there was no claim that he withheld any
information from the prosecution. D'Ambrosio v. Marino, #13-3118, 2014 U.S.
App. Lexis 5588, 2014 Fed App. 55P (6th Cir.).
Several off-duty police officers visited a
woman's apartment by invitation and she and the officers engaged in sexual
activity involving bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism. A neighbor later
reported the incident, seeing her bloody swollen mouth, but the woman would not
cooperate in the investigation. She later testified before a grand jury that
she had allowed the men to urinate in her mouth because one had slapped and
scared her. The officers were found not guilty of charges arising from the
incident and sued those involved in the investigation and prosecution. Two
prosecutors were entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity for their
roles. Rogers v. O'Donnell, #12-6335, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 24830, 2013 Fed App.
0344P (6th Cir.).
In a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that
the chief investigator for a prosecutor's office conspired to present, and did,
in fact, present false testimony to a grand jury, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the investigator was entitled to absolute witness immunity on all claims
arising from his grand jury testimony. A witness in a grand jury proceeding is
entitled to absolute immunity just as is a witness who testifies at a trial.
The Court found that there is no reason to distinguish law enforcement
witnesses from lay witnesses in civil rights actions. The rule that a grand
jury witness has absolute immunity from any civil rights claim based on the
witness’ testimony may not be circumvented by claiming that a grand jury
witness conspired to present false testimony, or by using evidence of the
witness’ testimony to support any other claim concerning the initiation or
maintenance of a prosecution. Rehberg v. Paulk, #10-788, 2012 U.S. Lexis 2711.
A police officer prosecuted on charges arising
out of a fatal shooting sued the city and its chief prosecutor for false
arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and emotional distress. The
prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity, and this immunity was not
defeated by the claim that he acted in bad faith, as he acted within the scope
of his role as a prosecutor and not as an investigator. The city was also
entitled to immunity under Ohio state law because the criminal charges did not
arise from the employment relationship, but from an independent investigation
subsequent to and unrelated to the police department's prior internal inquiries
about the incident. Jopek v. City of Cleveland, #93793, 2010 Ohio App. Lexis
1922 (8th Dist.).
Over ten years after being convicted of sexual
assault and homicide, a man was exonerated by DNA evidence. He sued the city of
Chicago, a number of police officers, and a prosecutor, claiming that several
detectives and the prosecutor had coerced him into falsely confessing to the
crimes in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A federal appeals court has
rejected the prosecutor's appeal of the denial of his motion for absolute
prosecutorial immunity, finding that there were unresolved disputed factual
issues concerning the prosecutor's role in obtaining the confession that
rendered it impossible to decide the immunity issue on appeal. If the
prosecutor was acting in an investigatory role, rather than a prosecutorial
role, he would not be entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Further,
while he could still be entitled to qualified immunity if he did not violate
clearly established law, he would not be entitled to qualified immunity if he
aided in coercing a false confession. Hill v. Coppleson, #09-1878, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 23940 (7th Cir.).
A man was prosecuted by the U.S. government for
conspiring to provide material support or resources to terrorists and related
charges. He sued, claiming that the prosecutor had maliciously and
intentionally withheld and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Finding
that these claims only related to the nondisclosure in connection with the
prosecution, and not with the underlying investigation, a federal appeals court
held that the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity from liability.
Koubriti v. Convertino, #09-1016, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2283 (6th Cir.).
State social workers were properly granted
qualified immunity for taking custody of the plaintiff's children. The right of
parents and children to live together without interference is limited by a
governmental need to investigate serious abuse claims. In this case, there was
good cause for the defendants to believe that parental sexual abuse had taken
place, and under such circumstances, they did not need a court order to remove
the children to protect them against what they believed was an imminent danger
of serious bodily injury. As for claims concerning the defendants' subsequent
filing of a custody petition and alleged falsification of evidence in
connection with it, they were entitled to absolute immunity. Haldeman v.
Golden, #08-15648, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25610 (Unpub. 9th Cir).
Attorney employees of a city's child welfare agency
were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions taken in
connection with an investigation into the death of the plaintiff's infant son,
since their function was similar to that of a prosecutor. Caseworkers involved
in the case, however, acted more like investigators than prosecutors, so they
could assert, at most, qualified immunity defenses, and were not entitled to
absolute immunity from liability. Cornejo v. Bell, No. 08-3069 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 38 (2nd Cir.).
An arrestee sued a prosecutor for allegedly
wrongfully requiring him to refrain from filing a civil lawsuit against private
parties with whom he had a fight in exchange for dismissing criminal charges
against him. He had violated the agreement by filing a civil lawsuit, been
prosecuted as a result, and was found not guilty. The federal appeals court
ruled that an allegedly improper motive by the prosecutor was insufficient to
defeat his defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity to the lawsuit, so long
as his actions fell within the general scope of his duties as an advocate in
connection with judicial proceedings. Entering into a release-dismissal
agreement, like the one used in this case, falls within a prosecutor's normal
duties in deciding whom to prosecute. Cady v. Arenac County, #08-1795, 574 F.3d
334 (6th Cir. 2009).
A man's conviction for the abduction and sexual
assault of a woman was overturned after new evidence was revealed and a key
witness recanted her testimony. On retrial, the accused was found not guilty,
and released, having served twelve years in prison. The accused then sued a
police detective, a forensic consultant, and his alleged victim. A federal
appeals court ruled that the statements of a potential witness who had not
testified at the original trial should have been disclosed to the defense because
they called into question, if not entirely discredited, the crime victim's
identification of the plaintiff as one of her attackers, so that summary
judgment was reversed on claims arising from the alleged failure to disclose
exculpatory evidence. Claims against the detective for perjury, however, were
barred by absolute witness immunity, since they were based on his trial
testimony, instead of his role as complaining witness. Moldowan v. City of
Warren, #07-2115/2116/2117, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17988 (6th Cir.), amended by
Moldowan v. City of Warren, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18562 (6th Cir.).
A federal appeals court declined to grant
immunity to two Iowa prosecutors, stating that "immunity does not extend
to the actions of a county attorney who violates a person's substantive due
process rights by obtaining, manufacturing, coercing and fabricating evidence
before filing formal charges, because this is not a distinctly prosecutorial
function." The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review that holding. McGhee
v. Pottawattamie County, #07-1524, 547 F.3d 922 (8th Cir.), cert. granted,
#08-1065, 2009 U.S. Lexis 3008.
A Michigan Assistant Attorney General and
two state special agents were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on
federal civil rights claims arising from their six-hour search of a man's
business pursuant to a search warrant, during which time they found evidence
that he had the financial ability to meet his child support obligations. This
resulted in him subsequently pleading guilty to four felony charges for failing
to pay child support to four women who had his children. Claims against the
defendants in their official capacities were claims against the state barred by
the Eleventh Amendment. Additionally, the Assistant Attorney General was
entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on individual capacity claims, as
authorizing the issuance of a search warrant in the course of a criminal
investigation and prosecuting felony refusal to pay child support was part of
her prosecutorial duties. Streater v. Cox, #08-1631, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10597
(Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Supervisory prosecutors
were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity in a federal civil rights
lawsuit brought by a prisoner who showed that his murder conviction had depended
on false testimony provided by a jailhouse informant, a unanimous U.S. Supreme
Court held. The plaintiff claimed that his conviction had been caused by the
failure of the supervisors' failure to properly train and supervise prosecutors
or to develop an information system containing potential impeachment material
concerning such informants, in order to disclose it to criminal defendants and
their defense attorneys. Absolute immunity from liability applied because the
actions or inactions involved here concern how and when to make impeachment
information available at trial, and, therefore, are directly connected with a
prosecutor's basic trial advocacy duties. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854,
2009 U.S. Lexis 1003.
False arrest lawsuit filed almost four years
after a conviction for possessing a stolen car was set aside was time-barred by
a two year Illinois statute of limitations. Prosecutors in the case were
entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Gordon v. Devine, No. 08C377, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 81234 (N.D. Ill.).
Claims against a municipal judge for allegedly
conspiring with a police officer to issue an "oral warrant" to search
a man's home, knowing that no authority to issue the search warrant existed,
were barred by absolute judicial immunity. The officer sought the warrant in
response to a call from the man's wife, then involved in a contentious divorce.
Lawrence v. Ray, Civil Action No. 07-2812, 2008 U.S. District Lexis 81207
(D.N.J.).
State judicial marshals were not entitled
to quasi-judicial immunity for telling a man that he had to remain in a
courtroom for five minutes and using force to stop him when he tried to leave
after three minutes. They were also not entitled to qualified immunity on a
false arrest claim when no judge had ordered him to stay in the courtroom, and
a reasonable marshal should have understood that it was unlawful to detain him.
Stanley v. Muzio, No. 3:07cv59, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74879 (D. Conn.).
A man accused of murdering his wife had charges
dropped when a medical exam determined that she died of natural causes.
Prosecutors, however, had absolute immunity on their decision to charge him,
and an officer who testified during grand jury proceedings had absolute witness
immunity. Further, probable cause to arrest existed at the time of the arrest.
Andros v. Gross, No. 07-2259, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20187 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Prosecutor was not entitled to absolute
prosecutorial immunity when it was alleged that they failed to inform a judge
who issued a warrant to detain material witnesses in a murder case that the
case had been continued, resulting in the witnesses remaining incarcerated. The
duty to inform the judge of this was administrative rather than prosecutorial,
especially when the judge had ordered that he be kept informed of any delay in
the underlying murder case. In a second case, decided together with the first
one, the federal appeals court also found that keeping a witness in a case in
custody after the end of the proceeding in which he was to testify was part of
the prosecutor's administrative oversight duties, and had "nothing to
do" with carrying out the prosecution, so that absolute immunity was not
available. Odd v. Malone, No. 06-4287, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16466 (3rd Cir.).
Social worker and her supervisor were not
entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in filing a child dependency
petition allegedly based on fabricated facts and evidence used to removed a son
from his parent's home and to attempt to place the child under state
supervision. In ruling that social workers were not entitled to absolute
immunity in this context, the court overruled its previous decision in Doe v.
Lebbos, #02-16326, 348 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2003). Beltran v. Santa Clara County,
No. 05-16976, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1331 (9th Cir.).
FBI agent's testimony to a federal grand jury,
which the plaintiff claimed was false, did not violate the plaintiff' rights.
Additionally, her testimony was truthful, and the Fourth Amendment's probable
cause requirement was satisfied by the fact that the grand jury returned
indictment against the plaintiff. The Assistant U.S. Attorney was entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity for her conduct in presenting evidence to grand
jury and in preparing for the initiation of the criminal prosecution. Collis v.
U.S., Civil No. RWT 05-3066, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58073 (D. Md.).
In malicious prosecution lawsuit, prosecutor was
entitled to absolute immunity for all his actions, including his decisions as
to which witnesses to call before the grand jury which indicted the plaintiff.
Redwood v. Dobson, No. 05-4324, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2606 (7th Cir.).[N/R]
The Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2679(b)(1)
provides federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims for actions taken
in the course of their official duties, and gives the Attorney General the
power to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct
was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the
incident. Once that certification takes place, the U.S. government is
substituted as the defendant instead of the employee, and the lawsuit is then
governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. Additionally, if the lawsuit began in
state court, the Westfall Act provides that it shall be removed to federal
court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusive"
for purposes of the removal. Once the certification and removal take place, the
federal court has the exclusive jurisdiction over the case, and cannot decide
to send the lawsuit back to state court. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court
also ruled that certification can take place under the Westfall Act in
instances where the federal employee sued claims, and the Attorney General also
concludes, that the incident alleged in the lawsuit never even took place.
Osborn v. Haley, No. 05-593, 2007 U.S. Lexis 1323. [N/R]
Plea bargaining policy of prosecutor's office
under which no plea bargaining was allegedly allowed unless the district
attorney rather than the judge selected the exact sentence imposed could not
result in liability for the district attorney or presiding judge. Engaging in
plea bargaining is part of the prosecutor's decision-making concerning whether
to prosecute, which is protected by absolute immunity, and the defendant judge
was entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Miller v. County of Nassau, No.
06-cv-4347, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90329 (E.D.N.Y.). [N/R]
In lawsuit brought by man who spent 22 years on
death row for a kidnapping, rape, and murder he was subsequently cleared of,
detectives were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they acted in
bad faith in essentially destroying exculpatory DNA evidence. Prosecutors in
the case were not entitled to absolute immunity on similar claims that they
destroyed exculpatory evidence. Yarris v. County of Delaware, No. 05-1319, 465
F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Dec]
While a prosecutor's alleged conduct of
unilaterally deciding to increase the amount of an arrestee's bond was not
prosecutorial in nature, so that he was not entitled to prosecutorial absolute
immunity in a federal civil rights lawsuit over this action, he was still
entitled to absolute immunity, as his action was judicial or quasi-judicial in
nature. Root v. Liston, No. 05-2004, 444 F.3d 127 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
An officer who testified at a grand jury
proceeding against an arrestee, and who turned over to a prosecutor all
evidence he knew of, including all exculpatory evidence, was entitled to
absolute immunity from federal civil rights liability for malicious
prosecution. Zamora v. City of Belen, No. Civ. 03-743, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1315
(D.N.M. 2005). [N/R]
Police officers were entitled to absolute
immunity on an arrestee's claim that they offered perjured testimony at his
trial. Additionally, the arrestee, who was convicted of third-degree resisting
arrest, could not pursue his claims that his arrest and imprisonment were
unlawful when his conviction had not been overturned on appeal or otherwise set
aside. Blacknall v. Citarella, No. 05-3694, 168 Fed. Appx. 489 (3rd Cir. 2006).
[N/R]
In a defamation lawsuit brought by police for
statements made by a township supervisor during the meetings of a township's
board of supervisors, the supervisor was entitled to absolute immunity from
liability under Pennsylvania state law. . Heller v. Fulare, No. 05-3687, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 16843 (3d Cir.). [N/R]
Illinois Supreme Court rules that police officers
who allegedly failed to assist domestic violence victim in response to 911 call
were not entitled to absolute immunity under state law on a claim that their
inaction was willful and wanton conduct which caused her death when her husband
subsequently shot her. More specific limited immunity provision of domestic
violence statute applied instead, with an exception for willful and wanton
conduct. Moore v. Green, No. 100029, 2006 Ill. Lexis 613. [2006 LR Jun]
Both prosecutor who decided to pursue murder
charges against suspect and investigator who presented testimony to a state
grand jury as a complaining witness were entitled to absolute immunity from
liability in lawsuit brought by suspect, who spent ten years incarcerated
before charges being dismissed following the reversal of the second of his two
convictions. Knight v. Poritz, No. 05-1350, 157 Fed. Appx. 481 (3rd Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
County employees were entitled to absolute
immunity for seizing and incarcerating a man under a valid bench warrant issued
in a child support arrearage case. Lepre v. Tolerico, No. 04-4179, 156 Fed.
Appx. 523 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
State prosecutor and trial judge were both
entitled to absolute immunity from liability from arrestee's claim that they
conspired together to have him arrested on false charges by having an arrest
warrant issued concerning traffic offenses which they allegedly knew had
previously been dismissed. Lyghtle v. Breitenbach, No. 04-3296, 139 Fed. Appx.
17 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Assistant district attorneys were not
entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for their alleged retaliation
against employee of sheriff's office who allegedly revealed purported defects
in child sex abuse investigations, since some of their actions were outside of
the scope of their functions as prosecutors and not "closely
associated" with a judicial process. Botello v. Gammick, No. 03-16618,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 12122(9th Cir.). [N/R]
Assistant state's
attorney was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on civil rights claims
asserted by arrestee arising out of his alleged false arrest and wrongful
conviction for murder. The prosecutor's conduct in interviewing witnesses and
the arrestee, reading the arrestee his Miranda rights, and approving the
charges brought against him were all part of his job as a prosecutor in
initiating and prosecuting the state's case against the accused. The arrestee
failed to show that the prosecutor in any way acted beyond the scope of his
authority or that he acted in a manner that was illegal, malicious, or
intentional, rather than carried out for the purpose of furthering the state's
interests. Hampton v. City of Chicago, No. 04C3456, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (N.D.
Ill. 2004). [N/R]
Statements made by county attorney about a
defendant in a press release and press conference after charges of murder
against him were dropped were not protected by absolute immunity since they
were not made incidental to the termination of the judicial proceeding. There
were genuine issues as to whether or not the statements were opinion protected
by the First Amendment, and whether the statements, stating that the former
defendant had committed the murder, were made with actual malice. Federal trial
court denies summary judgment to defendant county and county attorney in former
defendant's libel and slander lawsuit under Iowa state law. Harrington v.
Wilber, No. 4:03-CV-90616, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (S.D. Iowa 2005). [N/R]
Prosecutors who approved allegedly facially
invalid post-indictment search warrant of indictee's property were not entitled
to absolute immunity from liability to the extent that the warrant sought to
obtain evidence of crimes not charged in the indictment, but were entitled to
qualified immunity to the extent the warrant was aimed at obtaining evidence to
prosecute the pending charges. District attorney was entitled to qualified
immunity, however, on approval of allegedly overbroad search warrant, because
it was not so lacking in indications of probable cause as to make a belief in
probable cause unreasonable. KRL v. Moore, No. 02-15296, 384 F.3d 1106 (9th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court holds that trial court, in
ruling on whether prosecutor and his investigator were entitled to absolute
immunity in lawsuit over alleged tainted conviction of five men for felony-murder
of a police officer, improperly believed that it must assume the truth of the
plaintiffs' claims without examining the evidentiary support offered for those
claims and their admissibility. Butler v. Cervantes, No. 02-57049, 370 F.3d 956
(9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
Alabama sheriff had Eleventh Amendment immunity
from federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged rape of burglary victim by
deputy sheriff dispatched to assist her, as he acted, under state law, on
behalf of the state, not the county. Sheriff also had absolute immunity from
state law official capacity claims and discretionary function immunity from
individual capacity claims for negligent hiring, supervision, or training of
the deputy, under state law. McClure v. Houston County, Alabama, 306 F. Supp.
2d 1160 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [N/R]
Prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity
from liability for decision to prosecute town officials, regardless of whether
they had a political motivation for doing so. Bernard v. County of Suffolk, #02-9313,
356 F.3d 495 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
FBI agents were not entitled to either absolute
or qualified immunity on claims that they essentially "framed" a
former informant on charges of kidnapping and murder by arranging for false
evidence against him which led to convictions and sentences of life
imprisonment and death respectively, which subsequently were overturned.
Plaintiff claimed that these actions were in retaliation for his decision to
stop being an informant. Manning v. Miller, #02C372, 355 F. 3d 1028 (7th Cir.
2004). [2004 LR Apr]
Prosecutors who advised a deputy sheriff that he
could make an arrest for "attempted solicitation of murder," despite
the fact that no such crime existed under Washington state law, were not
entitled to absolute immunity from liability, since prosecutorial immunity does
not apply to the function of providing legal advice to the police, but
individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The arrest
ultimately violated no constitutional rights because the same conduct supplied
probable cause to arrest the plaintiff on a charge of felony harassment.
Dillberg v. County of Kitsap, No. 02-35565, 76 Fed. Appx. 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Prosecutor who filed a misdemeanor criminal
complaint against a man for adultery, based on his admission of an
extra-marital affair in the course of his grand jury testimony, was entitled to
absolute immunity for the decision to prosecute even though the prosecutor
later acknowledged that he exceeded his authority in bringing the charge, and
the charges were subsequently dismissed. A prosecutor who brings criminal
charges is entitled to absolute immunity for doing so, unless he acts in the
absence of all jurisdiction. Thomas v. County of Putnam, 257 F. Supp. 2d 711 (S.D.N.Y.
2003). [N/R]
Connecticut State Police officer was entitled to
absolute judicial immunity from a lawsuit seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 for actions related to his performing a bail setting function assigned,
under state law, to police officers. Government officials acting in a
"judicial capacity" are entitled to absolute immunity, and the
important question was the nature of the function being performed, not the
identity of the person performing it. In setting $500,000 cash only bail for
the plaintiff, who was arrested on a narcotics offense, the officer acted in a
judicial capacity. Sanchez v. Doyle, No. 3:02CV0351 (JBA), 254 F. Supp. 2d 266
(D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
Prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity for
alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence in criminal prosecution and alleged
instructions to witness to falsely implicate defendant during murder trial.
Federal appeals court rejects argument that it should adopt an exception to
prosecutorial immunity for "egregiousness" in cases of "drastic
and systematic departure" from the proper exercise of prosecutorial power.
Cousin v. Small, No. 01-30745, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestees were entitled to amend their complaint
against deputy sheriff, prosecutor and other defendants claiming false arrest,
malicious prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for sexual abuse of a child
in case where child later recanted his testimony. Initial complaint did not
contain enough specific facts for court to determine whether absolute or
qualified immunity applied to the defendants' alleged conduct. Broam v. Bogan,
No. 01-17246, 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity from
liability for a decision to prosecute, even if it was purportedly based on an
inadequate police investigation. Prosecutor was only entitled, however, to
qualified immunity for making statements to the media, but did not violate any
clearly established constitutional rights when all that was communicated was
the fact of the arrest, even if that caused the arrestee to be held up to
ridicule and scorn. Joseph v. Yocum, #01-4142, 53 Fed. Appx. 1 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
State prosecutor was entitled to absolute
immunity for allegedly telling an officer to delete exculpatory material from
an arrest warrant application and resubmit it to the court, after the first
attempt to obtain the arrest warrant was rejected. Sheehan v. Colangelo,
#02-7736, 53 Fed. Appx. 584 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Officers were entitled to absolute immunity for
entering a building owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing a
court-ordered home visit by social service workers conducting a home study of
the care of children who resided there. Entry did not constitute a "search"
and officers did not see or touch business or confidential records or even open
the closet where the records were stored. Monroe v. Pueblo Police Department,
No. 01-1112 30 Federal Appendix 778 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jun]
County prosecutor was not entitled to absolute
immunity for allegedly making false statements in an application for an arrest
warrant to revoke an arrestee's bail. An arrestee released on pretrial bail has
a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizures. Prosecutor was,
however, entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established,
in 1997, that there was a Fourth Amendment right not to have a prosecutor,
seeking to revoke bail, personally attest to false allegations made by biased
sources without further investigation. Cruz v. Kauai County, #00-15065, 279
F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Officers were entitled to absolute witness
immunity for alleged perjured testimony in plaintiff's earlier civil rights
lawsuit claiming excessive use of force during his arrest, but not on his claim
that they engaged in an out-of-court conspiracy to suppress and fabricate
evidence relevant to that lawsuit. Paine v. City of Lompoc, No. 99-56347, 265
F. 3d 975 (9th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Feb]
345:132 Prosecutors were entitled to
absolute immunity for retaining arrestee's leg prosthesis as possible evidence
in criminal proceeding, as well as following conviction, while appeal was
pending. Parkinson v. Cozzolino, No. 00-0126, 238 F.3d 145 (2nd Cir. 2001).
344:120 Officer had arguable probable cause to
arrest flea market vendors for unlawful sale of goods with unauthorized
trademarks, based in part on low prices of goods bearing "Nike"
trademarks, and was entitled to qualified immunity; absolute immunity protected
a second officer from claims based on his testimony at preliminary hearing.
Scarbrough v. Myles, No. 00-14063, 245 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
343:104 Driver of police vehicle had a
ministerial duty to activate his lights and siren when passing through a red
light while responding to an emergency situation; question of whether he and
the city were entitled to official immunity in lawsuit brought by passenger
officer injured in collision with a tow truck might depend on whether he did
so. Nelson v. Wrecker Services, Inc., #C0-00-1363, 622 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. App.
2001).
341:70 County was not liable for alleged failure
to allow mother of children to contest county's obtaining of permanent custody
of her children, when there was no showing that it was a county policy or
custom to deny parents a hearing; county social worker who allegedly failed to
notify state court that mother wanted to assert her parental rights, however,
was not entitled to absolute immunity, as she was not a "legal
advocate" or prosecutor in the case. Holloway v. Brush, No. 96-3732, 220
F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2000).
340:59 Even if the techniques used to interview
child complainants were improper and coercive, nursery school teacher indicted
and prosecuted for alleged sexual abuse of children could not recover damages
since these interrogation techniques did not violate her own constitutional
rights; prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for presenting
children's testimony to grand jury and at trial. Michaels v. New Jersey, #99-5486,
222 F.3d 118 (3rd Cir. 2000).
335:165 Prosecutor's statements to a newspaper
following murder suspect's acquittal could not be the basis for a defamation
lawsuit under California state law since they only expressed opinions protected
under the First Amendment and could not be interpreted as statements of facts;
even if defamatory, they could not be the basis for a federal civil rights
lawsuit; prosecutor was a state, not county, official for purposes of a
wrongful prosecution claim. Weiner v. San Diego County, #98-55752, 210 F.3d
1025 (9th Cir. 2000).
330:86 Prosecutors were entitled to qualified
immunity for obtaining search warrants for examination of an auto dealership's
records after customer complained that he had not received a rebate he claimed
he was entitled to; prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from
liability for impaneling grand jury and for their subsequent conduct in
prosecuting auto dealership employees. Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v.
Nash-Holmes, No. 97-15275, 169 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1999).
334:147 Federal agent was entitled to absolute
immunity from liability for any allegedly false statements made before a
federal grand jury or during a criminal trial. Dillihunt v. Hitchcock, 32
F.Supp. 2d 1001 (W.D. Tenn. 1999).
320:126 Officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for using wiretap recording allegedly illegally gathered by private
party as a means of convincing one party to the conversation to become an
informant; "extraordinary circumstances" of their reliance on advice
of prosecutor entitled them to such immunity even though such use of tape was
illegal. Davis v. Zirkelbach, #97-1107, 149 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 1998).
{N/R} Officers were not entitled to absolute
immunity for allegedly forcing an informant to give false testimony about
another individual's involvement in drug transaction and made a false report
stating that individual had also implicated himself during an interview.
Hammond v. Kunard, 148 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 1998).
317:70 Prosecutor was entitled to absolute
immunity for obtaining arrest warrants and unsuccessfully prosecuting couple
for extortion, and to qualified immunity for advising police that threat to
reveal sexual harassment complaint to man's family unless money was paid might
be extortion. Manetta v. Macomb County Enforcement Team, # 97-1256, 97-1299,
141 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 1998).
304:51 Prosecutor may be liable in federal civil
rights suit for making false statements, under oath, in connection with
application for arrest warrant; in certifying veracity of alleged facts which
were basis for warrant, she acted as a "complaining witness" rather
than as a lawyer, and prosecutorial absolute immunity did not apply. Kalina v.
Fletcher, 118 S.Ct. 502 (1997).
306:83 Local legislators are entitled to absolute
immunity in federal civil rights lawsuits brought over introducing, voting for,
or signing an ordinance, regardless of their motives. Bogan v. Scott-Harris,
118 S.Ct. 966 (1998).
293:68 Sheriff carrying out attachment of material
witness for capital murder trial pursuant to facially valid order issued by
trial judge was absolutely immune from liability, even if he allegedly had
knowledge that order lacked legal cause when witness had not been served with a
subpoena Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107 (5th Cir. 1996).
{N/R} Prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity
from liability for gang murder of witness they subpoenaed to testify as witness
to gang crime, despite alleged assurances to him that he would be safe Falls v.
Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.4th 1031, 49 Cal.Rptr. 906, 1996 Cal App. Lexis 140
278:20 Prosecutors were not entitled to absolute
immunity in suit charging that they delayed conducting a reinvestigation of a
murder for which the wrong man was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned; but
they were entitled to absolute immunity for failing to take legal steps towards
his release after their investigation indicated he was innocent Guzman-Rivera
v. Rivera- Cruz, 55 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1995).
280:52 Officer absolutely immune for statements
at preliminary hearing Rock v. Lowe, 893 F.Supp. 1573 (S.D.Ga 1995).
[Crossreferences: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity] 282:85 Officers
were entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial, immunity for carrying out facially
valid court order to close lounge as a "nuisance" because of alleged
drug activity on the premises; later determination that evidence was
insufficient to warrant permanent closing of lounge did not alter result
Shelton v. Wallace, 886 F.Supp. 1365 (S.D.Ohio 1995).
287:165 Officers were entitled to absolute
immunity for following judge's order to take attorney into immediate custody
after he summarily found her guilty of criminal contempt of court; excessive
force claim against officers once she was in custody should be judged on Eighth
Amendment cruel and unusual punishment standard rather than Fourth Amendment
reasonableness standard Sharp v. Kelsey, 918 F.Supp. 1115 (WDMich 1996).
[Cross-reference: Assault and Battery: Physical]
285:133 Police officer was entitled to absolute
immunity on arrestee's claim that he perjured himself in grand jury testimony
Ali v. Person, 904 F.Supp. 375 (D.N.J. 1995).
{N/R} City was not entitled to absolute immunity
in civil rights lawsuit brought over allegedly unconstitutional actions and
legislation passed by local legislature Berkley v. Common Council of City of
Charleston, 63 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 1995).
265:3 Police officer who allegedly conspired with
prosecutor to present perjured evidence at trial was not entitled to absolute
immunity, while prosecutor was, federal appeals court rules Dory v. Ryan, 25
F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 1994).
266:19 Federal appeals court holds that deputy
sued for alleged perjured testimony at pretrial suppression hearing was
entitled to absolute witness immunity from liability Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d
616 (5th Cir. 1994).
{N/R} County law enforcement officials were
entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for enforcing valid judicial
orders Roland v. Phillips, 19 F.3d 552 (11th Cir. 1994).
City and county could not be held liable for
inadequate training of officers in need for probable cause for an arrest when
officer who presented affidavit for arrest warrant was himself entitled to
qualified immunity because he acted as a reasonable officer in doing so on the
basis of information he had at the time Kohl v. Casson, 5 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir.
1993).
Judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for
stopping motorist on interstate highway and summoning police officer to charge
motorist for honking his horn and motioning to judge to change lanes Malina v.
Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121 (5th Cir. 1993).
City council members were not entitled to
absolute legislative immunity against federal civil rights suit claiming that
their actions, in allegedly having city pay all punitive damage awards against
officers for using excessive force, constituted a pattern or practice that
encouraged officers to use excessive force and led to death of plaintiff's
father Trevino v. Gates, 17 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1994).
Parole officer entitled to absolute witness
immunity in parolee's civil rights suit claiming that officer submitted a
perjurious affidavit in opposition to his plea for habeas corpus Sykes v.
James, 13 F.3d 515 (2nd Cir. 1993).
Police detective who performed investigative work
for prosecutors in connection with a criminal prosecution resulting from a
sting operation was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from liability
for malicious prosecution Davis v. Grusemeyer, 996 F.2d 617 (3rd Cir. 1993).
Prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity
in civil rights lawsuit brought alleging fabrication of evidence and making of
false statements at press conference announcing indictment; prosecutor could
assert claim, however, to qualified immunity Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 113 S.Ct.
2606 (1993).
States and state agencies or "entities"
may immediately appeal trial court denials of Eleventh Amendment immunity
claims; Eleventh Amendment provides not only a defense to liability, but an
immunity to suit, including the burdens of discovery and trial Puerto Rico
Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc, 113 S.Ct. 684 (1993).
City council members were not entitled to
absolute legislative immunity for allegedly granting indemnification to all
police officers who were found liable for using excessive force, no matter how
willful the officers' actions were Trevino v. Gates, 798 F.Supp. 621 (CD Cal
1992).
Judge was absolutely immune from liability for
allegedly ordering police officers to use excessive force to bring attorney
before him Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 (1991).
Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal civil
rights action against state police officer in his individual capacity
Harrington v. Schossow, 457 N.W.2d 583 (Iowa 1990).
States may not grant immunities in Federal Civil
Rights cases in their courts which are not available in federal court Howlett
By and Through Howlett v. Rose, 110 S.Ct. 2430 (1990).
Prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity
for giving advice to police officers Burns v. Reed, 111 S.Ct. 1934 (1991).
Penn State police entitled to sovereign immunity
from unlawful arrest suit by suspect imprisoned for four months before
determination that white powder was aspirin rather than drugs Serrano v.
Pennsylvania State Police, 568 A.2d 1006 (Pa/Cmwlth. 1990).
Officers who arrested courtroom spectator for
contempt based on judge's order were absolutely immune from lawsuit Baldez v.
City and County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285 (10th Cir. 1989).