FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 26 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 01 50 -RWS JEFF REY H. HOL DEN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CLIFF S TICHER, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 24 , 20 11 ) Befo re MAR TIN andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es , andRESTANI, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM: Thi s ca se in vo lv es all eg at io ns th ata pr os ecu to r vi ol at edan d c on sp ire d t o

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, J udg e of the United States Court of Interna tional Trade , * sitti ngby designation.vi ol at e Je ffre y Hol de n’s (“ Hol de n” or “ App el la nt ”) Fo urth an d F irs t Am en dm en t rig ht s b y gi vi ng leg al ad vi ce t o t he po li ce o ffi cers res ul ti ng inApp el lant ’s arres t fo r di so rd erl y

co nduc t an d o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce an d b y cau si ng a jud ge to is su e a be nc h warran t. In Se pt em be r 20 07 , Dann y

Payne , th e ch ie f of

th e Mc Caysvi ll e 1 Po li ce Dep art m en t, s to pp edHol de n a ndask edHol de n t o c om e to th e p ol ic e st at io n t o s pe akwit h Th om as W oo dy (“ W oo dy”). At th e p ol ic e st at io n, Woo dy de m an de d Ho ld en ’s dri ve r’s li cen se an d a ccu se d Ho ld en of c ur si ng at h im fro m a
m ov in g v eh ic le . W

he n Ho ld en wentto hi s ca r to ge t h is li cen se , W oo dy ran at Hol de n s crea m in g a ndtel li ng Hol de n h e was go in g t o jai l. Ho ld en clo se d h is car do or . W oo dy po un de d o n t he car an d t ol d Ho ld en to ge t o ut . Hol de n i ni ti al ly refu se d, t he n ro ll eddo wn h is win do w andW oo dy pu nc he d Ho ld en . Payne to ld Hol de n t o “ go ho m e an d fo rg etth is ev er h ap pe ne d.” RE Tab 2 , ¶ 68
. The ne xtda y , Hol de n s wor e a warr an t ap pl ic at io n a ga in stW oo dy for
as saul t. Defe nd an t Cl iff

Sti ch er (“ App el le e” o r “ St ic he r”), Fa nn in Co un ty Ass is ta ntDis tri ctAtt orne y , m etwit h P ayne an d Woo dy. W it h t he kn owl ed ge th at Hol de n h adswo rna warra ntap pl ic at io n a ga in stW oo dy, Stic he r ad vi se d P ayne
an d Woo dy onho w to fil l o utaffi da vi ts forarre stag ai ns t Ho ld en . Payne an d

The fa cts are drawn from Holden’ s complaints and ar e ac cepte d as fa ct for the purposes 1 of the a ppeal. 2W oo dy swor e o utaffi da vi ts forarre st . Hol de n was arre st edon Sep te m be r 11 , 20 07 . The ch arg es were d is m is se d i n Au gu st20 09
. Inearl y 20 07 , Hol de n was arre st edon un rel at edch arg es of c riminal tre sp as s. Th e ch arg es were fi rs t “ no ll e p ro ss ed ” b ecau se of l ackof e vi de nc e, subs eque nt ly the y

were p res en te d t o agra ndjury. The g ran d ju ry in di ct edHol de n in 20 07 . Fin al ly, th e co m pl ai ntall eg es th aton Jan ua ry 28 , 20 08 , Sti ch er “ cau se d a Fan ni n c ou nt y

Supe rio r Co urt J ud ge to is su e an in va li d b en ch warran t fo r [Ho ld en ’s] arre st ” o n c riminal tre sp as s ch arg es . RE Tab 2 , at Ex . C. Hol de n fi le d a42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io n a ga in stSti ch er, Payne, Wood y , and ot he rs , all eg in g t he arre st s an d p ro se cu ti on s wer e m ad e wit ho utpro babl e cau se in vi ol at io n o f hi s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts an d i n re ta li at io n fo r th e ex erci se of h is Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Hol de n v . Ens le y , No. 2 :0 9: -CV-0 01 50 -RWS, 20 10 W L 25 57 75 8, at*2 (N.D. Ga. Jun e 1 8, 2 01 0) . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Ho ld en ’s
co m pl ai nt s al le ge d fa ct s s uf

fic ie ntto m eetth e p le ad in g re qu ire m en ts , bu t g ran te d St ic he r’s m ot io n t o d is m is s b as edon Sti ch er’s ab so lu te imm un it y forbo th hi s ro le in ad vi si ng th e p ol ic e o ffi cers an d i n c au si ng th e Ja nu ary 20 08 be nc h warran t t o b e is su ed . Id. at*2 , 4. The di st ric t co urt d idno t re ach th e is su e o f qu al ifi ed imm un it y . See i d. Ho ld en no w app eal s.

3“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s d e n ov o.”

Ran da ll v. Sc ot t, 6 10 F.3d70 1, 7 05 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ W e . . . accep t as tru e th e fact s as setforth in th e co m pl ai ntan d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in th e pl ai nt iff’s fav or .” Id
.

Imm uni ty for Leg al Advi ce to Pol ic e Off ic ers A. Abso lu te I m m uni ty The di stric t co urt erredin gra nt in g S ti ch er ab so lu te imm un it y forgi vi ng le ga l ad vi ce t o P ayne an d Woo dy. Abs ol ut e imm un it y forpro se cu to rs tu rn s o n whe th er t he fun ct io n p erfo rm edis in ve st ig at iv e o r advo cat iv e. Mu ll in ax v. McEl he nn ey , 81 7 F .2d71 1, 7 15 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Pro se cu to rs do no t re cei ve ab so lu te imm

un ity forgi vi ng leg al advi ce t o p ol ic e whe re a p ro se cu to r gu id es po li ce ra th er t ha n wh ere apro se cu to r pr ep ares hi s o r he r own cas e. Bu rn s v . Reed , 50 0 U.S. 4 78 , 49 6 (1 99 1) . A pro se cu to r is no t “ an advo cat e b efo re h e h as pr ob ab le cau se to ha ve an y on e arr es te d.” al- Kid d v . Ash cro ft, 5 80 F.3d94 9, 9 59 n.9 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Bu ck le y v. Fi tz si m

m on s, 5 09 U.S. 25 9, 2 74 (19 93 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. An af fid av itforarre stun de r Geo rg ialaw m ay be pro cu redby a pro se cu to r, a la w enf or cem en t o ffi ci al , or e ve n apri va te cit iz en . Clel an d v . U.S. Fid el it y & Gua ran ty Ins . Co., 1 07 S.E.2d90 4, 9 06 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 59 ); s ee Ga. Co de Ann . §
417 -4 -4 1. Were St ic he r to ha ve si gn edth e aff id av itforarre sthi m se lf, h e wou ldno t ha ve rece iv edab so lu te imm un it y be cau se th e d oc um en t wo ul d h av e b een a swo rn factua l s ta te m en t. See Kali nav. Fl et ch er, 5 22 U.S. 11 8, 1 27 n.1 4, 1 29 (19 97 ) (a pr os ecu to r’s pe rs on al att es ta ti on s i n acert ifi cat io n wer e n otpro te ct edby abs ol ut e imm un it y ); M al le y

v. Br ig gs , 47 5 U.S. 3 35 , 34 0– 41 (19 86 ) (a p ol ic e o ffi cer d oe s no t re cei ve ab so lu te imm un it y forhi s s ig na tu re o n aswo rnfactua l s ta te m en t). Bec au se Sti ch er’s act io ns were n otin pre pa rat io n o f th e p ro se cu to r’s own cas e, were n otpart o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ces s, an d S ti ch er wo ul d n otha ve rece iv edab so lu te imm un it y ha d h e si gn edth e d oc um en ts hi m se lf, t he di st ric t co urt erredin gra nt in g St ic he r ab so lu te imm

un it y forgi vi ng leg al advi ce t o t he po li ce. B. Qua li fie d Imm uni ty Hol de n u rg es th is co urt, i n t he ab se nc e o f ab so lu te imm un it y , to fin d t ha t St ic he r ha s n o q ua li fie d i m m un it y as t o h is act io ns wit h re ga rdto th e aff id av it s fo r arre stan d o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce. W e fi ndth atSti ch er i s en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed 2 imm un it y . Fi rs t, Ho ld enall eg es th atSti ch er i s n oten ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un ity Although the district court did not rea ch the issue of qualified immunity , this court may 2 aff irm based on the r ecor d below. See F ishermen Ag ainst the Destruc tion of the Env’t, Inc. v. Closter Fa

rms, Inc., 300 F .3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002). B oth parties ask the court to dec ide the issue of qua lified immunit y , rathe r than re mand the issue to the district cour t, should there be no absolute immunity
. 5be cau se Sti ch er’s l eg al ad vi ce t o t he po li ce caus edanarre stfordi so rd erl y co nduc t whi chlac ke d p ro babl e cau se , vi ol at in g Ho ld en ’s Firs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t rig ht s. Be cau se di sc ret io nary au th or it y is no t co nt es te d, Hol de n m us t s ho w th at 3 St ic he r vi ol at eda co ns ti tu ti on al rig htan d t ha t co ns ti tu ti on al rig htwas c le arl y es tabl is he d. Du rru th y

v. Pa st or , 35 1 F .3d10 80 , 10 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Here, Hol de n fa il edto sp eci fy

ho w Sti ch er’s l eg al advi ce o r in vo lv em en t i n Ho ld en ’s
arre stforeit he r di so rd erl y co nduc t o r ob stru ct io n c ou ldst rip Sti ch er o f hi s qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Jo ne s v . Can no n, 1 74 F.3d12 71 , 12 82 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ a pl ai nt iff can no t s tri p a§ 1 98 3 d efen da ntof h is qu al ifi edim m un it y by citi ng to ge ne ral rul es or abs tra ctrig ht s” ). Seco nd , Hol de n a ll eg es th at“ St ic he r is no t en ti tl edto qu al ifi edim m un it y wit h re sp ectto hi s co nduc t i n fa ci li ta ti ng th e is su an ce o f th e fi rs t arres t warran t,” be cau se “ th e o ffi cers ha d n o re as on to de ta in Hol de n a nditwou ldha ve be en wit hi n h is rig htto si m

pl y lea ve .” Br. o f App el lant25 . Agai n, Ho ld en off ers no sp eci fic fact s re la ti ng Sti ch er’s act io ns to th e p ur po rte d c on st itut io na l v io la ti on . See J on es , 17 4 F .3dat 1 28 2. Ad di ti on al ly, Hol de n o ffer s n o l aw sh owi ng a

Holden does not c ontest that Sti cher was a ctingwithin the scope of his discr etionary 3 authority
. 6co ns ti tu ti on al rig htha s b een vi ol at edor h ow thi s ri gh t i s cl earl y est ab li sh ed
. Id.

4 St ic he r th eref

or e is en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un ity for gi vi ng leg al advi ce t o po li ce o ffi cers reg ard in g t he ir a ffi da vi ts forarre st . Imm uni ty for Benc h Wa rra nt Hol de n a ls o a ll eg es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g S ti ch er ab so lu te imm un it y forsi gn in g t he be nc h warran t. Sp eci fic al ly, Hol de n a ll eg es Sti ch er’s si gn atur e o n t he be nc h warran t eq ua te s t o t es ti m on y as aco m pl ai ni ng wit ne ss , no t
as anad vo cat e o f th e st at e. Thi s cl ai m lac ks m eri t. Abs ol ut e imm

un it y ex te nd s t o fa ls e st at em en ts m ad e b efo re t he co urt o n warra ntap pl ic at io ns . Ful lm an v. Grad di ck , 73 9 F .2d55 3, 5 58 –5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 19 84 ) (g ran ti ng ab so lu te imm un it y wher e th e p ro se cu to r si gn edanarre stwarran t wit ho utpro babl e cau se an d o n t he ba si s o f ev id en ce wh ic h the pro se cu to r al le ge dl y fab ric at ed ). Co m

pl ai ni ng wit ne ss es , ho wev er, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r or no t t he y are at to rn ey s, d o n otrece iv e ab so lu te imm un it y . Kali na , 52 2 U.S. at12 7 n.1 4; Mal le y , 47 5 U.S. at34 0– 41 . In Kal in a, th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t an at to rn ey ’s “pr ep arat io n a ndfil in g o f two of t he th ree c ha rg in g d oc um en ts ” in cl ud in g t he m ot io n fo r anarre stwarran t ar e p ro te ct edby abs ol ut e imm un it y , bu t
Holden re lies solely

on a state a

ppellate c ase, State v. F isher, 666 S.E.2d 594, 598 (Ga
. 4 App. Ct. 2008), which ca nnot be used to strip a prose cutor of qua lified immunit y . Rowe, 279 F.3d at 1280. 7th atth e at to rn ey ’s “ actin pe rs on al ly atte st in g t o t he tru th of t he av erm en ts in th e

cert ifi cat io n” were n otco ve redby abs ol ut e imm un it y . Kali na , 52 2 U.S. at12 9– 30 (n ot in g t ha t “ [t]es ti fy in g abo utfact s i s t he fun ct io n o f th e wit ne ss , no t o f th e la wy er”) . In Ri ve ra v . Leal, 3 59 F.3d13 50 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), th e Ele ve nt h Ci rcu ithe ldth atth e p ro se cu to r in m ak in g u ns worn fa ls e st at em en ts to th e co urt di d n otactas aco m

pl ai ni ng wit ne ss an d the refo re re cei ve d abs ol ut e imm un it y . Id. (fi nd in g t he “ swo rn/u ns worn d is ti nc ti on . . . de te rm in at iv e”). Here, Ho ld en cla im s “ St ic he r affi rm at iv el y m is rep res en te d t he st atus of a cri m in al pro se cu ti on of Ho ld en in supp ort o f a s eco ndwarran t ap pl ic at io n.” Br. of App el la nt18 . The b en ch warran t, h owe ve r, si gn edby a sup eri orco urt ju dg e an d St ic he r, is ne arl y

en ti rel y pro cedur al an d re qu ire s t he si gn atur e o f an“ Ass is ta nt Dis tri ctAtt orne y .” RE Tab 3 , at Ex . C. The o nl y li ne ass ert in g a ny inf

orm at io n be y on d c as e n um

be rs , nam es , dat es , add res se s, an d re qu es ts forbo ndam ou nt s i s:

“ Heret of or e arr es t warran t . . . was d is m is se d.” Id. Th e p ap erwo rkin qu es ti on be ars si gn ifi can t s im il ari ty w ith t he in fo rm at io n a ndm ot io n fo r an arre stwarran t in Kali na , bo th pro te ct edby abs ol ut e imm un it y , rathe r th an a pe rs on al att es ta ti on to th e truth o f av erm en ts in a supp le m en ta ry cert ifi cat io n. Se e Kal in a, 52 2 U.S. at 12 9. In an y

cas e, be cau se th e warra ntwas i n fa ctdi sm is se d p rev io us ly, th e st at em en t atis su e is tru e. The d is tri ctco urt i s t he refo re af firm ed
. 8AFFIRMED
.

9