## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril16,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PUB LI SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT T HOMAS M I NK; T HE HOWL I NG PI G , an uni ncorpor at ed as s oci at i on,

P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. J O H N W . SU T H E R S, i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas A t t or neyG ener al of the S t a t e o f Co l o r a d o , KENNET H R. B U C K , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyfor C o lo ra d o ’s 1 9 th Ju d icia l D istric t; S U S A N K N O X , a C h ief D e p u ty D i s t r i ctA t t or neyw or ki ng for C ol or ado’ s 19t h J udi ci al D i s t r i ct A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce, i n heri ndi vi dual c a p a c i t y, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, and S TUDENT P RES S LAW CENTE R; S I L HA C E NT E R F OR T HE S T UDY O F M ED I A ETH I CS; W O RL D PRE SS FREEDO M CO M M I TTEE; A SSO CI A TED PRE SS; BL OOMBE RG NE WS ; CO L OR ADO PRES S ASS OC I ATI ON ; DO W J ON ES & COMP ANY, I NC . ; M E DI A L AW RE S OUR CE CE NT E R; T HE RE P OR T E RS CO M M I T T E E F OR FRE ED O M O F TH E PR ESS; COLORADO DI S TRI CT ATTO RN EYS’ CO UN CI L, N o. 04- 1496-2-

A m i cus C ur i ae.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO (D . C . N O . 0 4 -B -23 (C B S )) A . B ruce J ones , H ol l and & H artL L P, D enver , C ol or ado ( M ar cyG . G l enn and V al er i e L. Si m ons , H ol l and & H ar t , D enver , C ol or ado, and M ark Si l ver s t ei n, A m e ric a n C iv il L ib e rties U n io n F o u n d a tio n o f C o lo ra d o , D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , w ith him on t he b ri efs) for Plai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . W i l l i am V . A l l en, A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , L i t i gat i on Sect i on, O ffi ce of t he C o lo ra d o A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llee Jo h n W . S u th e rs, a n d D a v id R . B r ougham (G i l l i an D al e w i t h hi m on the br i ef) , H al l & E vans , L . L . C . , D enver C ol or ado, forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee Sus an K nox. S. M ark G oodm an and A dam G ol ds t ei n, StudentPr es s L aw C ent er , A r l i ngt on, V i r gi ni a, and J ane E. K i r t l ey , Si l ha C ent erfort he Studyof M edi a Et hi cs and L aw , M i nneapol i s , M i nnes ot a, on the br i ef forA m i ci C ur i ae StudentPr es s L aw Ce n t e ra n d S i l h a Ce n t e rfo rt h e S tu d yo f M e d i a E th i c s a n d L a w. K evi n M . G ol dber g, C ohn and M arks L L P, W as hi ngt on, D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a, on t he br i ef forA m i cus C ur i ae W or l d Pr es s Fr eedom C om m i t t ee. T h o m as B . K ell eyan d S teve n D . Z an sb erg , F ae g re & B en so n L L P , D en v er, C olor ado , on t he b ri ef fo r A m i ci C uri ae A ssoci at ed P res s, B l oo m berg N ew s, C ol or ado Pr es s A s s oci at i on, D ow J ones & C om pany , I nc. , M edi a Law R es our ce C enter , and T he R epo rt ers C om m i t t ee fo r Freedom of the P res s. M il es M ad o ri n , S taff

A tt o rne y , C o lorad o D istri ct A tt o rne y s’ C o u n cil , D en v er, C o lo ra d o , o n th e b rie f fo r A m icu s C u ria e C o lo ra d o D istric t A tto rn e y s’ C o u n c il. B efo re O’ BRI EN , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.-3- I . I nt roduct i on C ol or ado l aw m akes i t“cr i m i nal l i bel ” t o know i ngl ypubl i s h anys t at ement t endi ng t o “i m peac h t he hones t y , i nt egr i ty , vi r tue, orr eput at i on orexpos e the natur al defe ct s of one w ho i s al i ve, and ther ebyt o expos e hi m t o publ i c hatr ed, cont empt , orr i di cul e. ” C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 13- 105. W hi l e a s tudentatt he U ni ver s i t yof N or t hern C ol or ado ( U N C ) , T hom as M i nk cr eat ed and publ i s hed an i nt ernet - bas ed j our nal cal l ed Th e Ho w lin gP ig . Sever al i s s ues of the j ournal i ncl uded M i nk’ s ps eudonym ous col um n by“J uni us Puke, ” w hi ch par odi ed the vi ew s of a r eal U N C pr ofes s ornamed Juni us Peake, and w hos e on- l i ne p h o to g ra p h b o re a s tr o n g re s e m b la n c e to th e re a l p ro fe s s o r. Pr ofes s orPeake c om pl ai ned t o the G r eel eyPol i ce D epart m entw ho co m m en ce d an inv esti g ati o n o f M ink fo r po tential v iolati o n s o f C o lorad o ’s crim inal li b el st atute. T h e p o li ce , in co njun cti o n w ith the lo ca l distri ct att o rne y ’s o ffice, sou g h t and o b tai n ed a se arc h w arran t, w h ich th eyex ec u ted a t M ink ’s re s id e n c e , s e iz in g h is p e rs o n a l c o m p u te r a n d o th e r w ri tte n m a te ri a ls . M i nk s ued forpr os pect i ve r el i ef a nd damages under42 U . S. C . § 1983, and forvi ol at i ons of the Pr i vacyPr ot ect i on A ct , 42 U . S. C . § 2000aa. T he di s tr i ct cour tent er ed a t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or deragai ns tt he di s tr i ctatt orney ’ s offi ce, b u t d ism iss e d th e c a se in its e n tiretya f ter th e o ffice d isa v o w e d a n in ten t to pr os ecut e M i nk. T he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded that : ( 1) M i nk’ s r eques tfor-4-

d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t fa iled fo r la c k o f sta n d in g , (2 ) th e sta tu to ryp riv a c yc laim fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef, and ( 3) the damages cl ai m agai ns tthe as s i s t ant di s t r i ctat t or neyar i s i ng fr om t he s ear ch w as barr ed byabs ol ut e pr os ecut or i al im m u n ity. H avi ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e aff i r m both the dis m i ssal of M i nk ’s faci al chall eng e t o the C olor ado cri m i nal l i bel s t atute because h e lac k s stan d ing an d h is cl aim is m o o t, an d the d ism issal of h is st atuto ry d am ag es c lai m fo r fa il u re to state a c lai m . B u t w e re v erse the d istri ct co u rt ’s d ism iss a l o f

th e d a m a g e s c laim a risin g f ro m th e se a rc h b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e it i s n o t barred b yab so lute im m u n ity . A cc o rdin g ly , w e re m an d to the d istri ct co u rt fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s o n th e q u e s tio n o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity. I I . Backg r ound T hom as M i nk began r el eas i ng i s s ues of Th e Ho w lin gP ig , a s tudent - run, in ter n e t-b a se d jo u rn a l, du rin g h is fa ll 2 0 0 3 se m e ste r a s a stu d e n t at th e U n iv e rsity of N or t hern C ol or ado. T he j our nal , w hi ch w as cr eat ed, m ai nt ai ned, and publ i s hed f ro m th e h o m e c o m p u ter M in k sh a re d w ith h is m o th e r, ad d re ss e d c u rre n t ev e n ts i nvol vi ng t he l ocal U N C comm uni ty . A m ong othert hi ngs , i tfea tur ed a r egul ar c o l u mn f

r o m th e e d i t o r , a fi c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e rn a me d “ J u n i u s P u k e . ” Th e c o l u mn di s pl ay ed obvi ous l ydoct or ed phot ogr aphs of an a ctual U N C pr ofes s or , J uni us Peak, w ear i ng dark s ungl as s es and a H i t l er - l i ke must ache . T he purpos e of the col um n, acc or di ng t o M i nk, w as t o “s poof[] and par od[y ] Pr ofes s orPeake by-5-

addr es s i ng s ubj ect s on w hi ch the r eal pr ofes s orw oul d be unl i kel yt o w r i t e, or t hr ough t he as s ert i on of vi ew s di amet r i cal l yoppos ed t o thos e of Pr ofes s or P e a k e .” A p lt. A p p . a t 8 0

– 8 1 . A ft erl earni ng of the par ody , Pr ofes s orPeake c ont act ed the l ocal di s tr i ct a tto rn e ya n d sw o re o u t a c o m p lain t, alleg in g h e w a s a v ictim o f c rim in a l li b e l. C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 13- 105. I n r es pons e t o the compl ai nt , a G r eel eyPol i ce D epart m entdet ect i ve opene d an i nves t i gat i on. T he det ect i ve r evi ew ed copi es of Th e Ho w lin gP iga n d c o n c lu d e d th a t it s e d ito r w a s M in k . B a se d o n th is in fo rm a tio n , the d e tec tiv e p re p a re d a se a rc h w a rra n t affid a v it ac c o rd in g to p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d b yCo l o r a d o l a w. Co l o . Re v . S t a t . § 1 6 - 3 - 3 0 1 ; Co l o . R. C rim . P ro c . 4 1 (b ), (c ). T h e se p ro c e d u re s a llo w a d e tec tiv e to su b m it an a ffid a v it t o t he off

i ce of t he di s t r i ctatt or neyforl egal r evi ew . C ol o. R ev. St at . § 20- 1- 106. 1. C ons equent l y , a deputydi s tr i ctatt or ney , appel l ee Sus an K nox, r evi ew ed and appr oved the s ear ch w arr antaff i davi t , w hi ch w as then pr es ent ed t o and a p p ro v e d b ya m a g is tr a te ju d g e . W ith the s ea rch w arran t i n h an d , G ree leyp o li ce sea rch ed the h o m e w h ere M i nk l i ved w i t h hi s m ot heron D ece m ber1 2 , 2003. T he pol i ce c onfi s cat ed M i nk’ s per s onal comput erand addi t i onal w r i t t en mat er i al s r efe r enci ng The Ho w lin gP ig . A c c o rd in g to M in k , d u rin g th e se a rc h o n e o f th e d e tec tiv e s to ld hi m he w as i n “bi g t r oubl e” a nd l ed hi m t o bel i eve a cr i m i nal compl ai nthad bee n fi l ed. M i nk al s o cl ai m s t hata det ect i ve w arned hi m thatr es um i ng publ i cat i on of-6-

The How l i ng P ig w oul d onl y“make t hi ngs w or s e for[hi m ] . ” A pl t . A pp. at 8 2

– 8 3 . Fol l ow i ng t he s ear ch, M i nk obt ai ned couns el w ho cont act ed the G r eel ey pol i ce on D ece m ber23, 2003. A ccor di ng t o M i nk’ s couns el , the i nves t i gat i ng offi cerdi s cl os ed hi s pl ans t o r ecomm end thatcr i m i nal l i bel char ges be fi l ed agai ns tM i nk. T hats ame day , M i nk’ s couns el i nform ed a l aw y eri n the di s tr i ct at t or ney ’ s offi ce thathe bel i eved the cr i m i nal l i bel l aw coul d notbe appl i ed cons t i tut i onal l yagai ns tM i nk fors t at ement s m ade i n Th e Ho w lin gP ig . On D ece m ber30, 2003, M i nk’ s couns el faxe d a l et t ert o the di s tr i ctatt orney demandi ng t he i m m edi at e r etur n of m at er i al s s ei zed f r om M i nk’ s hom e and e x p lain in g M in k ’s p o sitio n th a t p ro se c u tin g h im u n d e r th e c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te w oul d be uncons t i tut i onal . T he l et t err eques t ed a r epl ybyJ anuary2, 2004, but th e d is tr ic t a tto rn e ya p p a re n tly n e v e r r e s p o n d e d . O n J anuary8, 2004, M i nk fi l ed s ui ti n fede r al di s tr i ctcourts eeki ng pr os pect i ve dec l ar at or yr el i ef thatthe C ol or ado cr i m i nal l i bel s t atut e w as uncons t i tut i onal undert he Fi r s tA m endmentand al s o r eques t i ng damages forthe sear ch an d sei zure con du ct ed p ursuantt o the st atute. W i th respectt o the fi rs t cl ai m , t he compl ai ntal l eged M i nk fac ed “a n i m m i nentthr eatof bei ng char ged w i t h a vi ol at i on of C ol or ado’ s C r i m i nal L i bel St atut e, ” A pl t . A pp. at10, and that the “ crim inal inv esti g ati o n , the th rea tene d p rose cu ti o n , an d the s ea rch an d seizu re-7-

h a v e c h ill e d M r. M in k f ro m e x e rc isin g h is rig h t to f re e d o m o f

e x p re ss io n a n d h is ri g h t to f

re e d o m o f

s p e e c h .” A p lt. A p p . a t 1 5 . M i nk al s o r eques t ed a t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or der . O n J anuary9, 2004, t he d istric t co u rt o rd e re d : th a t th e D istric t A tto rn e yfo r th e 1 9 th Ju d icia l D istric t s h a ll n o t in iti a te t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f Th o ma s M i n k u n d e r Col o r a d o ’ s Cr i mi n a l L i bel St atut e, C . R . S. § 18- 13- 105, and the C i tyof G ree leys hal l , for thw i th, r etur n t o t he Pl ai nt i ffs t he comput er , and al l cont ent s ther eof, s ei zed fol l ow i ng t he s ear ch of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ hom e i n A ul t , C ol or ado. D is t. C t. O rd e r, J a n . 9 , 2 0 0 4 , a t 1 . T h e d istric t co u rt su b se q u e n tlyh e ld a sta tu s c o n fe re n c e d u rin g w h ich it learn ed the d istri ct att o rne yw o u ld n o t be fil ing ch arg es a g ains t M ink . In addi t i on, t he di s t r i ctatt or neyi s s ued a w r i t t en “N o Fi l e” de ci s i on, concl udi ng t he s t at ement s cont ai ned i n Th e Ho w lin gP igcoul d notbe pr os ecut ed underthe s t atut e. T her eaf

t er , pur s uantt o an agr eementof the part i es , the courti s s ued an o rde r va ca ti n g it s tem p o raryrestrai n ing o rde r. M i nk fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nton February19, 2004 on behal f of hi m s el f and Th e Ho w lin gP ig . T he amended compl ai ntr epea t ed hi s al l egat i ons t hatt he C ol or ado cr i m i nal l i bel s t atut e w as uncons t i tut i onal , and al s o named t he C o lo ra d o A tto rn e yG e n e ra l an d th e lo c a l d istric t atto rn e ya s d e fe n d a n ts in th e ir offi ci al capa ci t i es forpurpos es of s eeki ng pr os pect i ve r el i ef. M i nk al s o r eal l eged v io latio n s o f

h is s tatu to rya n d c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b a se d o n th e se a rc h o f h is r es i dence . H e furt hercl ai m ed he ha d publ i s hed tw o new i s s ues of The How l i ngB yt hi s t i m e, M i nk had dr opped hi s cl ai m s agai ns tt he G r eel eypol i ce 1 d e p a rtm e n t an d th e in d iv id u a l d e tec tiv e n a m e d in th e o rig in a l co m p lain t. -8- P igs i nce the fi l i ng of the compl ai ntw hi ch cont ai ned s t at ement s thatm i ghtbe c o n stru e d a s v io latio n s o f C o lo ra d o ’s c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te, a n d sa id h e p lan n e d to cont i nue publ i s hi ng s uch s t at ement s i n the futur e. I n addi t i on, he named Susa n K nox, t he deputydi s t r i ctat t or neyw ho r evi ew ed and appr oved the s ear ch w arr ant aff i davi t , i n heri ndi vi dual capa ci tyunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 and the Pr i vacy Pr ot ect i on A ct , 42 U . S. C . § 2000aa. 1 T he di s t r i ctat t or neyans w er ed the amended compl ai nton A pr i l 9, 2004, adm i t t i ng m ostof it s al l egati on s. A ft er the d efen dan t s fi l ed d i sposi t i ve m oti on s, t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed M i nk’ s s ui ti n i t s ent i r etybeca us e ( 1) he l acke d s t andi ng t o chal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i tyof the cr i m i nal l i bel s t atut e, ( 2) he fai l ed t o pr oper l ys t at e a s t atut orycl ai m forr el i ef unde rt he Pr i vacyPr ot ect i on A ct, an d (3) h is co n sti tuti o n al claim s ag ains t th e d ep u tyd istri ct att o rne yw ere b a rr e d b ya b s o lu te im m u n ity. I I I . D i s cus s i on T h is a p p e a l ra ise s th re e iss u e s: first, w h e th e r w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r M in k ’s fa c ial c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to th e c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te in l i ghtof the di s t r i ctat t or ney ’ s di s avow al of an i nt entt o pr os ecut e; s econd, w hetherM i nk’ s cl ai m fordamages undert he fe der al Pr i vacyPr ot ect i on A cts t at es a ca us e of a ct i on agai ns tpubl i c off i ci al s w ho di d notpart i ci pat e i n the s ear ch ofM i nk al s o appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forpart i al 2 su m m aryjud g m en t. B ec au se w e a ffirm the d ism issal of h is cl aim fo r de clarato ry r el i ef, w e do notr eac h t hi s i s s ue. -9- M i nk’ s r es i dence ; and thi r d, w hetherM i nk’ s cl ai m s fordamages agai ns tthe a tto rn e yw h o re v iew e d th e se a rc h w a rra n t ar e b a rre d b yth e d o c trin e o f a b so lu te p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i t y. W e ac ceptal l w el l - pl eade d fac t s as t rue forpurpos es of r es ol vi ng an appe al from a m oti on t o d i sm i ss. R u iz v . McD o n n e ll , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 1 (10 th C ir . 2 2 0 0 2 ), cer t . deni ed , 538 U . S. 999 ( 2003) . W e vi ew t he fa ct s as al l eged i n the compl ai nti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ffs , and w e w i l l uphol d the di s m i s s al onl yi f i tappea r s bey ond doubtt hatt heycan pr ove no s etof fa ct s w hi ch w o u ld e n title th e m to re lie f. Ini t i at i ve & R ef er endum Ins t . v. Walker , 450 F. 3d 1082, 1088–89 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . A . F aci al C hal l enge t o C ol orado’ s C ri m i nal L i bel St at ut e 1. S u m m ary of C on st i tuti on al C l aim s B efor e tur ni ng t o t he thr es hol d j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ues , w e pr ovi de a br i ef s um m aryof M i nk’ s cons t i tut i onal ar gum ent . T hi s backgr ound bear s on both t he un derl y i ng proced ural po sture of the case, as w el l as the clai m s ass ert ed ag ai nst th e p ro se c u to r w h o re v iew e d th e a ffid a v it i n su p p o rt o f th e se a rc h w a rra n t. M in k re q u e sts a d e c lar a tio n th a t th e C o lo ra d o c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te is fac i al l yuncons t i tut i onal undert he Fi r s tA m endment . H i s amended compl ai nt n a m e s th e C o lo ra d o A tto rn e yG e n e ra l a n d th e D is tr ic t A tto rn e ya s d e fe n d a n ts .-10-

C o lo ra d o ’s c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te p ro v id e s: ( 1) A per s on w ho s hal l know i ngl ypubl i s h ordi s s emi nat e, ei therby w r i t t en i ns t rum ent , s i gn, pi ctu r es , orthe l i ke, anys t at ementorobj ect t endi ng t o bl acke n t he m em or yof one w ho i s dead, ort o i m peac h the hones t y , i nt egr i t y , vi r tue, or r eput at i on or expos e the natur al defe ct s of o n e w h o is a liv e , a n d th e re b y to e x p o se h im to p u b lic h a tre d , co n tem p t, o r rid icu le, c o m m its c rim in a l li b e l. ( 2) I t sh all be an a ffi r m at i ve defens e thatthe publ i cat i on w as true, e x c e p t lib e ls te n d in g to b lac k e n th e m e m o ryo f th e d e a d a n d lib e ls t endi ng t o expos e the natur al defe ct s of the l i vi ng. ( 3 ) C r i m i n a l l i b e l i s a c l a s s 6 fe l o n y. C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 13- 105. M in k ’s p rim a ryc o n ten tio n is th a t th e C o lo ra d o c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te is o v erb roa d b ec au se itim p li ca tes co n d u ct th at i s co n sti tuti o n all yp rotec ted. In s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , M i nk poi nt s t o U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tcas e l aw r equi r i ng a part ybr i ngi ng a l i bel act i on t o pr ove ( 1) faul tof the s peake rand ( 2) fa lsityo f

th e sta tem e n t. S p e c ifica lly , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld fa lse sta tem e n ts on m at t er s of publ i c conc ern r egar di ng publ i c fi gur es ar e pr ot ect ed unl es s t hey ar e made w i t h “ac tual m al i ce”

— i . e. , w i th know l edge the s t at ement s ar e fa l s e or w ith re c k le s s d is re g a rd a s to w h e th e r t h e ya re fa ls e o r n o t. New York Ti m es C o. v. Sul l i van , 3 7 6 U .S . 2 5 4 , 2 7 9

– 8 0 (1 9 6 4 ). F a lse sta tem e n ts o n m a tters o f p u b lic c o n c e rn re g a rd in g p ri v a te fig u re s a re p ro te c te d u n le s s th e ya re m a d e n e g lig e n tly. G er tzv. R ober tWelch, Inc. , 4 1 8 U . S . 3 2 3 , 3 5 1 , 3 5 2 (19 7 4 ). In p u b li c c o n ce rn-11-

cas es , t he part ybr i ngi ng t he ac t i on al s o bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng the fa l s i tyof th e s ta te m e n t. P hi l adel phi a New s

papers v. Hepps , 4 7 5 U .S . 7 6 7 , 7 7 6 (1 9 8 6 ). M i nk al l eges Th e Ho w lin gP igw a s d e v o ted to m a tters o f p u b lic c o n c e rn to th e U N C c o m m u n ity, su c h a s la c k o f fa c u lty d iv e rs ity a n d f re e s p e e c h o n c a m p u s . Fur t her , he al l eges Pr ofes s orPeake of t en voi ced hi s vi ew s publ i cl yand has t her efor e ar guabl yr ender ed hi m s el f a publ i c fi gur e forFi r s tA m endment p u rp o s e s . M in k d o e s n o t, h o w e v e r, b ri n g a n “ a s a p p lie d ” c h a lle n g e to th e s ta tu te . I ns t ead, he ar gues t he s t atut e i s uncons t i tut i onal on i t s fac e bec aus e i tpuni s hes l i bel ous s t at ement s w i t h no faul tr equi r ementand w i thoutpl aci ng the bur den of p ro v in g fa ls ity o n th e p ro s e c u to r. M i nk fur t hercont ends t he C ol or ado Supr eme C our t ’ s s ubs equent i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e does notcur e the cons t i tut i onal i nfi r m i t i es . T he U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s lo n g re sp e c ted th e a b ili tyo f sta te h ig h c o u rts to n a rr o w o v e rb ro a d s ta tu te s s o a s to s o lv e c o n s titu tio n a l p ro b le m s . O s bor ne v. O h io , 495 U . S. 103, 119 ( 1990) . I n 1991, the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tnarr ow ed t he pot ent i al s cope of t he cr i m i nal l i bel l aw i n P e op le v . Ry a n , 806 P. 2d 935 (C o lo. 19 9 1 ): Fr om t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C o ur t ’ s pr onouncement s conce rni ng li bel w e dis cern a preci se cat ego ryof p rot ect ed co nd uct that fa lls o u tsi d e o f th e leg it im ate sw ee p o f se cti o n 1 8 -13 -10 5 . T h at ca tego ry cons i s t s of l i belous s t at ement s aboutpubl i c off i ci al s orpubl i c fi gur es in v o lv in g m a tters o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn . T h is c a teg o ryo f c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ot ect ed conduc tgi ves u s a cl earl i ne byw hi ch t o di s t i ngui s h the statu te’s co n sti tuti o n al an d u n co n sti tuti o n al ap p li ca ti o n s. W e the refo reTh a tt h e p l a i n t i ff mu s tp r o v e fa l s i tyfl o ws f r o m Ryan ’ s cons t i tut i onal 3 a n a ly sis . M o re o v e r, th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt h a d p re v io u slyru led th a t tru th is a d e fe n s e u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . G o m b a v . McL a u g h lin , 5 0 4 P . 2 d 3 3 7 (C o lo. 19 7 2 ); see also D i versi

f i ed Man ag em ent v. D enver P ost , 653 P. 2d 1103 ( C ol o. 1982) (discu ssing sp ee ch p rotec ti o n s fo r m att ers o f p u b li c c o n ce rn). -12- ho l d thatsect i on 18 -13-105 i s i nval i d only ins of aras i tr eache s c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec tedsta tem e n ts a b o u t p u b lic o ffi c ia ls o r p u b lic f igu res on m atters of

pu bli c con cern . O u r p arti al inv ali d ati o n , h o w ev er, a ffe c ts o n lyth e a p p lica tio n o f su b se c tio n (1 ) of th e sta tu te. T ru th sh a ll r emai n an affi r m at i ve defens e pur s uantt o s ect i on 18- 13- 105( 2) . . . and ar t i cl e I I , s ect i on 10, of the C ol or ado C ons t i tut i on. Id. a t 9 4 0

– 4 1 (fo o tn o te s o m itte d ). A c c o rd in g to M in k , Ryan d id n o t li m it th e sta tu te’ s a p p lica b ili tyw ith re g a rd to sta tem e n ts m a d e a b o u t p riv a te i ndi vi dual s on m at t er s of p u b lic conce r n, and t hu s the law con t i nu es t o run afou l of the F i rs tA m end m ent. H e cl ai m s these s t at ement s ar e s t i l l puni s habl e underC ol or ado l aw , even w hen made nonn e g lig e n tlya n d e v e n w h e n th e p a rtyb rin g in g th e a c tio n h a s n o t p ro v e n th e ir fa l s i t y. 3 W ith that b ac k d rop , w e turn to the p roc ed u ral po sture o f M ink ’s c o n stitu tio n a l cla im in lig h t o f th e d istric t atto rn e y ’s d isa v o w a l o f a n in ten t to p ro s e c u te h im u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . 2. Ju ri sdict i on — S tand i n g a n d M oo tness T o p u rsu e a c a se in fe d e ra l co u rt, a p lain tiff m u st s a tisf

yth e tw in re q u ir e m e n ts o f

s ta n d in g a n d m o o tn e s s . Wi ns nes s v. Yocom , 433 F. 3d 727, 731 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W ith o u t a liv e , co n c re te c o n tro v e rsy, w e lac k ju risd ictio n toT he deputydi s t r i ctat t or neyhas notchal l enged M i nk’ s s t andi ng t o pur s ue 4 t he st atutoryand com m on l aw dam ages cl ai m s. -13- cons i dercl ai m s no m at t erhow m er i t or i ous . B eca us e w e conc l ude M i nk fac es “no cr edi bl e thr eatof pr os ecut i on” underthe cr i m i nal l i bel s t atut e, he l acks s t andi ng t o pu rs ue his cl ai m s for prospecti ve rel i ef. F or the sam e reas on s, w e al so 4 c o n c lu d e h is c laim is m o o t. T h e re fo re , w e c a n n o t re a c h th e m e rits o f h is cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o t he s t atut e.

a. Standing. T o es t abl i s h s t andi ng, M i nk m us ts how ( 1) he has s uffe r ed an i nj ur yi n fac t , ( 2) t r ace abl e t o the defendant s , ( 3) t hatcan be r edr es s ed b ya fa v o ra b le d e c is io n o f th is C o u rt . S e e L u

ja n v . D e

fen d e rs o

f Wild lif

e , 504 U .S . 5 5 5 , 5 6 0 (1 9 9 2 ); s ee als o E lk G r ove Uni f i ed Sch. D is t . v. New dow , 54 2 U. S. 1, 11 ( 2004) . A pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur ym us tbe “a ctual ori m m i nent , notconj ectur al or hypot het i cal . ” Luj an , 504 U . S. at560. I n fr eedom of expr es s i on cas es , i nj uryi n fac tcan be s how n byal l egi ng ( 1) “an i nt ent i on t o engage i n a cour s e of c onductar guabl yaffect ed w i th a cons t i tut i onal i nt er es t , butpr os cr i bed bys t atut e, ” and ( 2) “a c r edi bl e thr eatof futur e pr os ecut i on. ” War d v. Utah , 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

“ A lleg a tio n s o f

p o ss ib le f

u tu re inju ryd o n o t sa tisf yth e inju ryin fa c t re q u ire m e n t, t hough a pl ai nt i ff ne ed notexpos e hi m s el f t o actual arr es torpr os ecut i on t o be e n tit led to c h a llen g e a sta tu te th a t h e c laim s d e ter s th e e x e rc ise o f h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” Ini t i at i ve & R ef er endum Ins t . v. Walker , 450 F. 3d at-14-

1 0 8 7

– 8 8 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). B u t th e “ m e re p re se n c e o n th e sta tu te b o o k s o f

a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l sta tu te, in th e a b se n c e o f e n fo rc e m e n t o r c re d ib le t hr eatof enfor cement , does notent i t l e any one t o s ue, even i f theyal l ege a n i nhi bi t i ng effecton cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc tpr ohi bi t ed bythe s t atut e. ” Wi nsness , 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 2 . T o s at i s fyt he i nj uryi n fac tr equi r ement , the pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e that expr es s i ve ac t i vi t i es w i l l be i nhi bi t ed by“an obj ect i vel yj us t i fi ed fe arof r eal cons equenc es , w hi ch ca n be s at i s fi ed bys how i ng a cr edi bl e thr eatof pr os ecut i on orot hercons equenc es fol l ow i ng fr om the s t atut e’ s enfor cement . ” Id . W h ile “pas tw r ongs ar e evi dence bear i ng on w hetherther e i s a r eal and i m m edi at e thr eat of r epea t ed i nj ur y , ” O ’ Shea v. Li t t l eton , 414 U . S. 488, 496 ( 1974) , theydo not co n fe r st an d ing to p u rsue p rosp ec ti v e re li ef w ith o u t som e c red ible threa t of fu ture inju ry. See Los A ngel es v. Lyons , 461 U . S. 95, 108 ( 1983) . “[A ] s s ur ance s fr om pr os ecut or s t hatt heydo noti nt end t o br i ng char ges ar e s uffi ci entt o defe at sta n d in g , ev e n w h e n th e in d iv id u a l p lain tiff h a d a c tu a llyb e e n c h a rg e d o r d ire c tly t hr eat ened w i t h pr os ecut i on fort he s ame conducti n the pas t . ” Wi nsness , 433 F. 3d at731 ( quot i ng D . L. S. v. Utah , 3 7 4 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . B u t sta n d in g is d e ter m in e d a t th e tim e th e a c tio n is b ro u g h t, Fr i ends of the Ea r th , In c . v . L a i d l a w En v t l . S e r v s . (TOC) , 5 2 8 U. S . 1 6 7 , 1 8 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d we g e n e ra lly lo o k to w h e n th e c o m p la in t w a s fir s t file d , n o t to s u b s e q u e n t e v e n ts . Nova Heal th Sys . v. G andy , 416 F. 3d 1149, 1153 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal-15-

ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n t hi s cas e, how ever , the s t andi ng i nqui ryi s compl i cat ed by th e u n iq u e tim e lin e o f e v e n ts. M in k ’s o rig in a l an d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t b o th al l ege thatas of J anuary8, 2004, M i nk “fa ce[ d] an i m m i nentthr eatof bei ng c h a rg e d w ith a v io la tio n o f C o lo ra d o ’s C ri m in a l L ib e l S ta tu te .” A p lt. A p p . a t 7 7 . B e fo re a n sw e rin g th e c o m p lain t, th e d istric t atto rn e y ’s o ffice c o n c lu d e d it co u ld notpr os ecut e the ca s e and i s s ued a “ N o Fi l e” de ci s i on on J anuary20, 2004. M i nk fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nton February19, 2004. A l though an i nves t i gat i on w as p e n d in g a t th e tim e th e c o m p lain t w a s filed , the th re a t o f p ro se c u tio n w a s s til l sp e c u lativ e a t th a t ti m e . M o re o v e r, b yth e tim e h e filed th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, even the i nves t i gat i on had ent i r el ydi s s i pat ed. W e l ook t o the amended compl ai nt in a s s e s s in g a p la in tiff' s c la im s , in c lu d in g th e a lle g a tio n s in s u p p o rt o f s ta n d in g . A n d sinc e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t “su p erc ed es a n o ri g inal co m p lai n t and ren d ers t he or i gi nal compl ai ntw i t houtl egal effect , ” In r e At las Van Li nes , Inc. , 209 F. 3d 1064, 1067 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) ; 3 M oor e’ s Feder al Pr act i ce, § 15. 17[3] ( M at thew B e n d e r 3 d e d .), th e ju stic iab ili tyo f M in k ’s c o n stitu tio n a l cla im is f u rth e r c a st in d o u b t. G i ven t his proced ural po sture, ou r cas es sugge stseveral ou t com es: ( 1) I n Faus t i n v. C i t

y & C ount

y of D enve r , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 9 4 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), w e hel d t he di s avow al of an i nt entt o pr os ecut e undera s t atut e pr i ort o the fi l i ng o f a c o m p la in t d e fe a te d s ta n d in g .T he onl ydi s t i nct i on betw een D . L. S. and the pr es entcas e i s t hatt he 5 D . L. S. pl ai nt i ff w as notexpos ed t o pr i ort hr eatof pr os ecut i on. -16- ( 2) I n D . L. S. v. Utah , 374 F. 3d 971 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , w e hel d the di s avow al of an i nt entt o enfor ce a cr i m i nal s odom ys t atut e aga i ns tthe pl ai nt i ff af t erthe com plai nt w as fi l ed, even i f i tm i gh tbe en forced ag ai nstano ther cl ass of persons, w as enough t o defe at s t andi ng. 5 ( 3) Fi nal l y , i n Wi ns nes s v. Yocom , 433 F. 3d 727 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , w e found l ack of s t andi ng i n t w o s i tuat i ons w her e the pl ai nt i ff s oughtpr os pect i ve r el i ef fr om pr os ecut i on undera s t atut e: ( a) w her e the pl ai nt i ff “ r ece i ved as s ur ance s fr om t he D i s t r i ctA t t or neyt hatt he fl ag- abus e s t atut e [w oul d] notbe enfor ced a g a in s t h im ” th o u g h th e a s s u ra n c e s c a m e “ a f te r [ th e p la in tiff] file d h is la w s u it,” i d. at733; and ( b) w her e the pl ai nt i ff w as al r eadyci t ed forfl ag- abus e, butt he p ro se c u to r q u ick lyd ro p p e d th e c h a rg e s a n d d isa v o w e d a n in ten t to p ro se c u te b e fo re th e p la in tiff

file d h is s u it. E ach of t hes e ca s es concl uded the pl ai nt i ff l acke d s t andi ng beca us e he c o u ld n o t e s ta b lis h a “ c re d ib le fe a r o f p ro s e c u tio n ” u n d e r t h e c h a lle n g e d s ta tu te . M i nk’ s fac t s di ffe ronl ys l i ght l yfr om t hes e pr ece dent s . U ni quel y , t he di s avow al of pr os ecut i on i n t hi s cas e ca m e betw een t he t i m e the l aw s ui tw as fi l ed and the fi l i ng of the amended compl ai nt . A tt he t i m e the or i gi nal compl ai ntw as fi l ed, m or eover , pol i ce ha d conduct ed a s ear ch of M i nk’ s r es i dence , s ei zed hi s comput er and pape r s , and w er e r et ai ni ng t hem pendi ng fur theri nves t i gat i on. A t t empt s bySi m i l ar l y , t he ci t yat t or neyi n Fa u stin appar ent l yconcl uded pr i ort o the 6 fi l i ng of the compl ai ntt hatt he s t atut e coul d notbe appl i ed t o the pl ai nt i ff, a lth o u g h th a t c o n c lu s io n w a s n o t d is c lo s e d u n til a f te r t h e c a s e c o m m e n c e d . -17- M i nk’ s couns el t o di s s uade the di s tr i ctatt or neyfr om char gi ng hi m had y ett o bear f ru it. T h u s, w h e n h e b ro u g h t th e su it M in k a p p e a re d to h a v e a leg iti m a te b a sis fo r a lle g in g a c re d ib le fe a r o f f u tu re p ro s e c u tio n . No n e t h e l e s s , we c o n c l u d e M i n k l a c k s s t a n d i n g u n d e ro u rc a s e l a w. F irst, bas ed on hi s r evi ew of contr ol l i ng Supr eme C our tpr ece dent s , the di s tr i ctatt or ney d isc laim e d a n in ten t to p ro se c u te im m e d iate lya f ter th e law su it w a s filed . In b o th D . L. S. and Wi nsness , the p ro se c u to r’s q u ick d isa v o w a l o f a n in ten t to p ro se c u te demonstr at ed a l ack of i nj ur y i n fac t . N o char ges w er e eve rfi l ed aga i ns tM i nk 6 an d the d istri ct att o rne yp u b li clyan n o u n ce d h e w o u ld n o t pro sec u te w ell b efo re hi s offi ce f

i l ed an a ns w erorm ot i on t o di s m i s s . W her e a pl ai nt i ff onl ys eeks pr os pect i ve r el i ef, s t andi ng i s defe at ed w hen ther e i s evi dence t he governm ent w ill n o t e n fo rc e th e c h a lle n g e d s ta tu te a g a in s t th e p la in tiff. See , e. g. , Har m on v. C ity o f Ka n sa s C ity , 1 9 7 F .3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 7 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (p lain tiffs lo st s tan d in g to se e k a n inju n c tio n w h e n c ityc o n c e d e d a ll o f th e ir a c tiv iti e s w e re c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro te c te d a n d w e re n o t p ro h ib ite d b yth e o rd in a n c e ). Second, i ti s s i gni fi cantM i nk fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntaft ert he di s t r i ct a t t o r n e yd i s c l o s e d h i s i n t e n tn o tt o p r o s e c u t e . Th e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s c o n fi r ms M i nk had no “i nj ur yi n fac t ” forpr os pect i ve r el i ef w hen he f i l ed hi s amendedSee In r e At l as Van Li nes , Inc. , 2 0 9 F . 3 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 6 7 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 7B o th th e c u rre n t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l an d D istric t A tto rn e y , an d th e ir 8 p re d e c e ss o rs, firm lyrejec ted a n yin ten t to p ro se c u te M in k u n d e r th e sta tu te b e fo r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , i n t h e i rs u b m i s s i o n s t o u s , a n d i n o r a l a r g u m e n t . We t ake them att hei rw or d. -18- compl ai nt . A nyt hr eatagai ns tM i nk att hatt i m e w as “hypothet i cal , ” not“ac tual

7 and i m m i nent . ” Fi nal l y , al t hough t he “N o Fi l e” l et t erconce i vabl ym i ghtnotbi nd other di s t r i ctat t or ney s , w e have hel d the “pos s i bi l i ty ” of f utur e enfor cementneed not b e “ re d u c e d to z e ro ” to d e fe a t s ta n d in g . Wi nsness , 433 F. 3d at733. I ti s “not n e c e ss a ryfo r d e fe n d a n ts [ ] to re f u te a n d e lim in a te a ll p o ss ib le r isk th a t th e sta tu te m ig h t b e e n fo rc e d ” to d e m o n s tr a te a la c k o f a c a s e o r c o n tr o v e rs y . Id . S in c e th is cas e comm ence d, m or eover , t he off i ce of both the A t t or neyG ener al and the D i s t r i ctA t t or neyhas change d hands w i th no change i n the governm ent ’ s pos i t i on t hatt he s t atut e w i l l notbe enfor ced a gai ns tM i nk. 8 M i nk, how ever , s ugges t s the di s tr i ctatt or neyfum bl ed aw ayi t s di s avow al byadmi t t i ng i n t he ans w ert o t he amended compl ai ntt hatM i nk fac ed an im m in e n t th re a t o f

p ro se c u tio n . In th e c o n tex t o f th e p ro c e d u ra l p o stu re o f th is c a se a n d e sp e c iallyin lig h t o f th e d istric t atto rn e y ’s “ N o F ile” lette r, th is over s i ghti s of no s i gni fi canc e. I ti s obvi ous no char ges agai ns tM i nk w oul d be p u rsu e d , an d , as w e h a v e e x p lain e d , “[ n ]o th in g in o u r c a se law p re v e n ts-19-

g o v e rn m e n t ac to rs f

ro m re sp o n sib lyre tre a tin g f ro m a n ill -a d v ise d p ro se c u tio n , in r es pons e t o contr ol l i ng Supr eme C our tauthor i ty . ” Wi nsness , 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 6 . T he governm ents houl d be enc our aged, notdi s s uaded, fr om as s ur i ng ci t i zens t hati tw i l l notpur s ue pr os ecut i ons bas ed on s t atut es thatcannotbe cons t i tut i onal l yenfor ced. G i ven the r eal i t i es of a publ i c l aw offi ce, i ti s not s urpr i s i ng t he ul t i m at e l egal concl us i on her e— the ca s e coul d notbe pr os ecut ed— w oul d be made att he hi ghes tpol i cyl evel s . B yj um pi ng the gun and fil ing a c o m p lai n t fo r pro sp ec ti v e re li ef, a p lai n ti ff ca n n o t r etain stan d ing w h ere th e p ro se c u to r im m e d iate lyc o n c lu d e s th e sta tu te c a n n o t b e c o n stitu tio n a lly enfor ced. B as ed on the r epr es ent at i ons of the publ i c off i ci al s char ged w i th enfor ci ng t he s t atut e aga i ns tM i nk, w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat“no cr edi bl e thr eat of pr os ecut i on” exi s t ed w hen M i nk fi l ed hi s amended compl ai nt . T hus , he l acks s t andi ng t o s eek pr os pect i ve r el i ef.

b . Mo o tn e s s . E ven i f w e w er e t o as s um e a c r edi bl e thr eatof p ro se c u tio n e x iste d b e fo re th e law su it w a s filed , w e a lso c o n c lu d e M in k ’s c laim forpr os pect i ve r el i ef i s m oot . “[I ] ti s notenough thata di s put e w as verym uch al i ve w hen sui tw as fi l ed, or w hen revi ew w as obtai ned , ” a l i ve co ntr ov ers ym ust re m a in th ro u g h o u t th e litig a tio n . Lew is v. C ont i nentalB ank C or p. , 494 U . S. 472, 477–78 ( 1990) . A r t i cl e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on l i m i t s us t o l i ve contr over s i es t hat e x ist a t a lls ta g e s o f

litig a tio n , in c lu d in g a p p e lla te re v ie w . Moongat e Wat erC o.-20-

v . D o n a A n a Mu t. D o m esti c Wa ter C o n su m ers A ss’n , 4 2 0 F .3 d 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W h e n “ in ter v e n in g a c ts d e stro ya p a rty ’s le g a llyc o g n iza b le in ter e st” in th e la w s u it, th e fe d e ra l c o u rt s a re d e p ri v e d o f ju ri s d ic tio n . Id. M er el ys t oppi ng t he compl ai ned of c onductor di nar i l yi s notenough, h o we v e r , t o e s t a b l i s h mo o t n e s s . “ F o rg o o d r e a s o n , c o u r t s a r e r e l u c t a n tt o d e e m a c o n tro v e rsy m o o t b a se d m e re lyo n a ss u ra n c e s f ro m th e d e fe n d a n ts th a t th e yw ill notengage i n unl aw ful act i vi t yagai n. ” Wi nsness , 433 F. 3d at736 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. W. T. G r antC o. , 345 U . S. 629, 632 ( 1953) ( “[V ] ol unt aryces s at i on of al l egedl yi l l egal conductdoes notdepr i ve the tr i bunal of pow ert o hearand d e ter m in e th e c a se , [in p a rt b e c a u se ] . . . [ t]h e d e fe n d a n t is f re e to re tu rn to h is ol d w ay s . ”) ) . I ns t ead, a defendantm us ts how “no r eas onabl e expe ct at i on thatt he w r ong w i l l be r epea t ed. ” W. T. G r antC o. , 345 U . S. at633 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). B u t in m a n yc irc u m sta n c e s it is o b v io u s p re v io u sly th re a te n e d c o n d u c t c a n n o t r e a s o n a b ly b e e x p e c te d to re c u r. See , e. g. , Tandy v. C ity o f Wich ita , 38 0 F . 3d 12 77 , 12 91 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( fi nd i ng a con trovers y m o o t b e c a u se a c ityh a d p ro v id e d d o c u m e n ts d e m o n stra tin g it h a d c h a n g e d its p rac ti ce s to c o m p lyw ith fe d era l l aw an d b ec au se “ [n ]oth ing in the rec o rd s u g g e s ts [ th e d e fe n d a n t] in te n d s to re s u m e its d is c o n tin u e d p o lic ie s . . . .” ). W e re ce n tl yd iscu ssed m o o tnes s in a F ir st A m en d m en t dec laratory ju d g m e n t c a s e c h a lle n g in g U ta h ’s fla g d e s e c ra tio n s ta tu te . Wi nsness , 433 F. 3d 727. I n Wi nsness , a Sal tL ake Ci tyr es i dentburned a s ym bol ont o a U ni t ed St at es-21-

fl ag and hung the fl ag on hi s gar age. A nei ghborr eport ed the i nci dentt o pol i ce, a n d W in s n e s s w a s c ite d fo r fla g -a b u s e . T h e fla g w a s c o n fis c a te d a s e v id e n c e . A ft ert he ci t at i on w as fi l ed, pr os ecut or s concl uded the or di nance coul d notbe c o n s titu tio n a lly e n fo rc e d a g a in s t W in s n e s s a n d “ im m e d ia te ly sc u ttle d ” th e c a s e . T he di s t r i ctat t or neyfi l ed an a ffi davi tw i th the courtas s ur i ng i tthatchar ges wo u l d n o tb e p u r s u e d . Ba s e d o n th a tr e c o r d , we c o n c l u d e d th a t“ [ e ] v e n i f we as s um e thata cr edi bl e thr eatof pr os ecut i on exi s t ed befor e thi s l aw s ui tw as fi l ed, t he pr os ecut or s ’ aff

i davi t s have r ender ed the contr over s ym oot . ” Wi nsness , 433 F. 3d at736. T he governm enthad “for es w orn anyi nt ent i on t o br i ng cr i m i nal char ges agai ns ti ndi vi dual s w ho al t erthe fl ag forexpr es s i ve purpos es ” and ha d “ca t egor i cal l yannounc[ ed] ” the off i ce w oul d “br i ng no pr os ecut i ons underthe s t atut e. ” Id . at736. W e found thes e as s ur ance s es t abl i s hed moot nes s s i nce the go vernm ent ( 1) had q uickl yrepudiat ed the act i on i nit i al l yt aken againstW i nsness, ( 2) i t s s t at ement s w er e made i n s w orn aff i davi t s , and ( 3) i tbas ed i t s deci s i on on c o n tr o llin g S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t, m a k in g f u tu re p ro s e c u tio n s u n lik e ly. T hes e fa ct or s s i m i l ar l ycutagai ns tM i nk. Fi r s t , no ci t at i on orform al char ges w er e eve rbr oughtagai ns tM i nk. A nd pr i ort o the fi l i ng of cha r ges the d is tr ic t a tto rn e yp re e m p tiv e ly iss u e d a le g a l o p in io n th a t p re c lu d e d p ro s e c u tio n . H i s opi ni on l et t erexpl ai ned the s t atut e coul d notbe cons t i tut i onal l yappl i ed t o t he c o n d u c t attrib u ted to M in k , an d , ac c o rd in g ly , ch a rg e s w o u ld n o t b e filed in th is m att er.-22-

S e c o n d , alth o u g h th e “ N o F ile” d e c isio n w a s n o t in th e fo rm o f a n a ffid a v it, t he di s t r i ctatt orneyt ook an unequi vocal pos i t i on ( 1) advi s i ng M i nk i n w r i t i ng, a n d (2 ) a d v isin g th e c o u rt th a t M in k w o u ld n o t b e p ro se c u ted u n d e r th e sta tu te now ori n t he futur e. W e fi nd per s uas i ve, as di d the di s tr i ctcourt , the di s tr i ct a t t o r n e y ’ s r e p u d i a t i o n o f a n i n t e n tt o p r o s e c u t e , a n d i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e s a me to u s o n a p p e a l. Fi nal l y , t he part i es conce de on appe al thatSupr eme C our tpr ece dentm akes e n fo rc e m e n t o f

th e C o lo ra d o c rim in a l li b e l sta tu te u n c o n stitu tio n a l u n d e r th e fa c ts as al l eged he r e. T he part i es have c oncede d Pr ofes s orPeake i s a publ i c fi gur e, a n d w e ll e s ta b lis h e d c a s e la w re q u ir e s fa ls ity a n d a c tu a l m a lic e to p ro v e lib e l. G e rtz , 418 U . S. 323. M or eover , the C ol or ado Supr eme C our thas i nt erpr et ed that s ta tu te to e m b o d yth e s e s ta n d a rd s . P eopl e v. Ryan , 8 0 6 P .2 d 9 3 5 (C o lo . 1 9 9 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t atto rn e yre c o g n ize d th e fo rc e o f th e se p re c e d e n ts a n d h is “N o Fi l e” de ci s i on s uppor t s ourconcl us i on thatthe thi r d Wi nsness fac t orhas been m eti n t hi s cas e. D e sp ite th e se a ss u ra n c e s, M in k c o n ten d s th e d istric t atto rn e y ’s d isa v o w a l is l i m i t ed t o t he s peci fi c s t at ement s m ade i n the fi r s tthr ee i s s ues of The How l i ng P igand does notappl ym or e br oadl yt o the t ype o f sta tem e n ts th a t sp a rk e d th is contr over s yort o t hos e s t at ement s w hi ch mi ghtappea ri n futur e edi t i ons of the publ i cat i on. I n s hor t , he cl ai m s thatw i thouta rul i ng thatthe C ol or ado cr i m i nal lib e l la w is u n c o n s titu tio n a l, h e m a yb e s u bje c t to p ro s e c u tio n in th e f u tu re . W e-23-

fi nd t hi s ar gum entunper s uas i ve. T he ana l y s i s pr ovi ded bythe att or neygener al a n d d istric t atto rn e yd e m o n stra te th e ir leg a l re a so n s fo r n o t en fo rc in g th e sta tu te i n t hi s cas e w oul d carr yovert o fur thers t at ement s of the type M i nk has s ubs equent l ym ade ori nt ends t o m ake. A l though the di s tr i ctatt or ney ’ s “N o Fi l e” d e c isio n w a s b a se d u p o n th e p e n d in g in v e stig a tio n , w e se e n o re a so n h is a n a ly sis w o u ld n o t a p p ly to s u b s e q u e n t s ta te m e n ts th a t a re le g a lly in d is tin g u is h a b le . I n s hor t , w e s ee no c r edi bl e thr eatof pr os ecut i on agai ns tM i nk. T he d istric t atto rn e yd id w h a t o n e w o u ld h o p e f ro m a p u b lic o fficia l: h e “ re sp o n sib ly r e t r e a t [ e d ] f

r o m a n i l l - a d v i s e d p r o s e c u t i o n , i n r e s p o n s e t o c o n tr o l l i n g S u p r e me C our tauthor i t y . ” Wi nsness , 4 3 3 F . 3 d at 73 6 . B ec au se stan d ing an d m o o tnes s are ju ri s d ic tio n a l a n d n o n -w a iv a b le , Mo o n g a te Wa te rC o ., 420 F. 3d at1088, w e nee d notcons i dert he mer i t s of M i nk’ s Fi r s tA m endmentchal l enge t o the C ol or ado c ri m in a l lib e l s ta tu te in th is c a s e . B . D am ages C l ai m und er Pri vacy P rot ect i on A ct M i nk al s o s eeks damages under42 U . S. C . § 1983 foral l eged vi ol at i ons of t he Pr i vacyPr ot ect i on A ct . T he A ctcr eat es a r i ghtof ac t i on fort he i m pr oper sei zure of m edia m at eri al s: N ot w i t hs t andi ng anyot herlaw , it shal l be unl aw ful fora governm ent offi cer or empl oy ee, i n connec t i on w i th the i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on o f a c rim in a l o ffe n se , to se a rc h fo r o r se ize a n y w o rk p ro d u c t m a ter ials p o ss e ss e d b ya p e rso n re a so n a b lyb e liev e d to h a v e a p u rp o se to di s s emi nat e t o t he publ i c a new s paper , book, br oadca s t , orothers i m i l ar form of publ i c comm uni cat i on, i n oraffect i ng i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce; butt hi s pr ovi s i on s hal l not i m pai r oraffectthe abi l i tyof anyM i nk i ni t i al l ys ued both pol i ce offi ci al s and the C i tyof G r eel eybut 9 vo l un t ari l ydropp ed b oth of t ho se cl ai m s. -24- g o v e r n me n to ffi c e r o re mp l o y e e , p u r s u a n tt o o th e rwi s e a p p l i c a b l e l a w, t o s ear ch forors ei ze s uch mat er i al s , i f . . . ther e i s pr obabl e ca us e. 42 U . S. C . § 2000aa. M i nk al l eges hi s s t atut or yr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen G r eel eypol i ce e nt er ed hi s hom e and s ei zed mat er i al s r el at i ng t o Th e Ho w lin gP ig . H e d o e s n o t, ho w ever, nam e any of t he offi cers w ho con du ct ed the sear ch. Inst ead, he seeks a 9 j udgm entagai ns tt he deputydi s t r i ctatt or neyforherr ol e i n r evi ew i ng the a ffid a v it in s u p p o rt o f th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t, w h ic h h e c la im s la c k e d p ro b a b le c a u s e . R e ly in g o n th e tex t o f th e sta tu te, w h ich m a k e s it u n law f u l “to s ear ch f

or ors eiz e a n yw o rk p ro d u c t m a te ri a ls ,” th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d th e c la im . H er e, M i nk di d notal l ege the di s tr i ctatt orneydi r ect ed, contr ol l ed orpart i ci pat ed i n t he s ear ch ors ei zur e. Si nce the s t atut e i ncl udes no l anguage cover i ng pr edi cat e ac t s byot heroffi ci al s , s uch as t he l egal r evi ew of the w arr ant appl i cat i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded no l i abi l i tyatt ache d t o the di s tr i ct a tto rn e y . W e agr ee. T he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e pr ecl udes l i abi l i tyfora per s on w h o d id n o t e n g a g e in a s e a rc h . In a n a n a lytic a lly sim ila r c a s e , C i t i cas t ers v. Mc C a s k ill, 8 9 F .3 d 1 3 5 0 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ), th e E ig h th C irc u it co n c lu d e d th e sta tu te cover ed onl ya defendantw ho “di r ect ed, s upervi s ed, orotherw i s e enga ged i n t he exe cut i on of the w arr antt o s uch an e xt entthata fi ndi ng can be m ade thats he-25-

‘ s ear ched forors ei zed’ t he [mat er i al s ] . ” Id. at 13 5 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). In C i t i cast ers , t he fa ct s cent er ed ar ound the pr os ecut or ’ s act i ons t aken af t erthe se a rc h w a rra n t w a s is su e d a n d in v o lv e d a n a lleg a tio n th a t th e p ro se c u to r a c tiv e ly as s i s t ed i n t he s ear ch. H er e, bycontr as t , M i nk has notal l eged a nyconductthat c o u ld b e c o n s tru e d a s a s s is tin g in th e w a rr a n t’ s e x e c u tio n . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m di s m i s s al of thi s cl ai m agai ns tthe deputydi s tr i ct a tto rn e y . C . D am ages C l ai m A gai nst t he D i s t ri ct A t t orney T he m ostdiffi culti ssue i n thi s case i s M i nk ’s cl ai m for dam ages ag ai nst t he deputydi s t r i ctat t or neybas ed on herr evi ew of the appl i cat i on fora s ear ch w a rr a n t. T he di s t r i ctat t or neyar gues t hatt hi s conducti s pr ot ect ed byt he doctr i ne of abs ol ut e pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty . T he di s tr i ctcourtagr eed, concl udi ng the p ro se c u to r a c ted a s “ a n o ffice r o f th e c o u rt” in a “ q u a si-ju d icia l” c a p a c ityto w hi ch abs ol ut e i m m uni t yappl i ed. 1. L egal F ram ew ork A bs ol ut e pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tyi s a compl et e bart o a s ui tfordamages u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . Im bl erv. P achtm an , 4 2 4 U .S . 4 0 9 , 4 1 9 n .1 3 (1 9 7 6 ). T he doctr i ne evol ved fr om t he abs ol ut e i m m uni tyj udges hi s t or i cal l yenj oy ed for “anyj udi ci al actdone byt hem w i thi n thei rj ur i s di ct i on. ” B r adl ey v . F is her , 80 U .S . 3 3 5 , 3 5 1 (1 8 7 1 ).-26-

T r adi t i onal l y , t he doctr i ne di d notappl yt o otherpubl i c off i ci al s — s uch as p o lice o ffice rs, g o v e rn o rs, a n d o th e r e x e c u tiv e o fficia ls— w h o w e re e n tit led o n ly t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yforact i ons per form ed i n thei roffi ci al capa ci ty . U nderthe comm on l aw , t he s cope of i m m uni tyforpr os ecut or s w as l i m i t ed t o s ui t s for m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and defamat i on, al though i t s r eac h i n § 1983 damages cas es w a s u n c le a r. Im bl er , 4 2 4 U .S . a t 4 2 1 .

a. Suprem e CourtFr am ew ork. T he Supr eme C our tdevel oped the m odern doctr i ne of pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tyi n § 1983 cas es i n a s er i es of ca s es begi nni ng i n 1976. I n Im bl erv. P achtm an , the C our tr ej ect ed the ar gum entthat l i m i t ed, orqual i fi ed, i m m uni t yw oul d be ade quat e t o pr ot ectthe pr os ecut orfr om th e th re a t o f

litig a tio n th a t c o u ld s h a d e th e iro th e rw is e in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t. M erel yprovidi ng qu al i fi ed im m un i tyw ou l d “p reventthe v i go rous and fearl ess per form ance of the pr os ecut or ’ s dutythati s es s ent i al t o the pr operfunct i oni ng of t he cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em. ” 424 U . S. at427–28. A ccor di ng t o the C our t , i tw as

“ b e tter to lea v e u n re d re ss e d th e w ro n g s d o n e b yd ish o n e st o ffice rs [ o f th e c o u rt] t han t o s ubj ectt hos e w ho t r yt o do thei rdutyt o the cons t antdr ead of r et al i at i on. ” Id . at428 ( quot i ng L earned H and i n G re g io re v . B idd le , 177 F. 2d 579, 581 ( 2d C i r . 1949) ) . T hus , pr os ecut or s ar e abs ol ut el yi m m une forthos e ac t i vi t i es

“ i nt i mat e l ya s s oc i a t e d wi t h the j ud i c i a l ph a s e of the c r i mi na l pr oc e s s . ” 42 4 U. S. at430. T o appl yt hi s s t andar d, t he C our tcr aft ed a “ funct i onal appr oach” by-27-

w h ich w e e x a m in e o n lyth e a c tio n s ta k e n b yth e p ro se c u to r “ in in iti a tin g [ ] a n d in p re s e n tin g th e S ta te ’s c a s e ” fo r t ri a l. Id. a t 4 3 1 . T he Supr eme C our tw as car eful t o not e, how ever , thatnoteveryact i vi tyof a pr os ecut ori nvol ves i ni t i at i ng and pr es ent i ng a ca s e. A bs ol ut e i m m uni tydoes notext end t o “thos e as pect s of the pr os ecut or ’ s r es pons i bi l i tythatcas thi m i n t he ro le o f a n a dm in istra to r o r in v e stig a tive o ffi c e r r a th e r th a n th a t o f a dv o c a te . ” Id. at 43 0

– 3 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ): W e re c o g n ize th a t th e d u ties o f th e p ro se c u to r i n h is ro le a s a n a d v o c a te fort he St at e invol ve ac t i ons pr el i m i naryt o the i ni t i at i on of a p ro s e c u tio n a n d a c tio n s a p a rt f ro m th e c o u rt ro o m . . . . P r epar at i on, both f orthe i ni t i at i on of

the cr i m i nalpr ocess a n d f ora tr i al, m ay r e q u i r e th e o b ta i n i n g, r e v i e wi n g, a n de v a l u a t i n go f e v i d e n c e . A ts o me poi nt, a n d w ith r es

pectt o s om e dec is i ons , the pr os ecutorno doubt f un ct i on s as an a dm i n istrat or rather tha n a s an o f f i cer of the co urt . D ra w in g a p ro p e r lin e b e tw e e n th e se f u n c tio n s m a yp re se n t d ifficu lt q u e s t i o n s , b u tt h i s c a s e d o e s n o tr e q u i r e u s t o a n t i c i p a t e th e m. Id . at431 n. 33 ( emphasi s added) . C oncl udi ng the cha l l enged c onducti n Im bl er fe ll o n the a d v o ca cyside o f th e sp ec tru m , the C o u rtg ran ted th e p rose cu tors abs ol ut e i m m uni t yagai ns tt he cl ai m thattheyhad pr ocur ed fa l s e t es t i m onydur i ng th e c o u rs e o f

a c ri m in a l tr ia l. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt late r e x ten d e d th e d o c trin e o f a b so lu te im m u n ityto s om e pr os ecut or i al conductoccurr i ng bef or e tr i al . I n B ur ns v. R eed , 500 U . S. 478 (1 9 9 1 ), a p ro se c u to r w a s a c c u se d o f (1 ) e licitin g fa lse tes tim o n yin a p ro b a b le caus e hea r i ng t hatl ed t o t he i s s uance of a s ear ch w arr ant , and ( 2) advi s i ng pol i ce o n in a p p ro p ri a te m e th o d s o f in te rr o g a tin g a s u s p e c t.I m por t ant l y , t he C our tr ead the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m narr ow l yand di d not 10 cons i dert he pr os ecut or ’ s m ot i vat i ons i n s eeki ng the s ear ch w arr antorhi s act i ons o u ts id e th e c o u rt ro o m in re la tio n to h is p ro c u re m e n t o f th e w a rr a n t. See i d. at 4 8 7

– 8 9 & n .5 . -28- R e g a rd in g th e p ro b a b le c a u se h e a rin g , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e d a b so lu te i m m uni t yext ended t o “anyhear i ng befor e a tr i bunal w hi ch per form ed a j udi ci al funct i on” and i ncl uded the pr es ent at i on of t es t i m onyi n s uppor tof an a ppl i cat i on fo r a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. Id . at 49 0 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). “T h e p rose cu tor’s a c tio n s a t issu e h e re — a p p e a rin g b e fo re a ju d g e a n d p re se n tin g e v id e n c e in s uppor tof a mot i on fora s ear ch w arr ant

— cl ear l yi nvol ve the pr os ecut or ’ s r ol e as a dv o c a te fort he St at e, r athert han hi s r ol e as admi ni s tr at orori nves t i gat i ve offi cer , t he pr ot ect i on forw hi ch w e r es erved j udgm enti n Im bl er . ” Id. at491 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . T he C our tw enton t o obs erve, 10

“ sin c e th e iss u a n c e o f a w a rra n t is u n q u e stio n a b lya ju d icia l ac t, ap p e a rin g a t a pr obabl e- caus e hea r i ng i s i nt i m at el yas s oci at ed w i th the j udi ci al phas e of the cr i m i nal pr oces s . ” Id . a t 4 7 9 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). B ur ns , how ever , di d notext end abs ol ut e i m m uni tyt o everyas pectof the pr os ecut or ’ s l egal advi ce t o pol i ce. T he Supr eme C our tconcl uded thatadvi s i ng pol i ce i n t he i nves t i gat i ve phas e of a cr i m i nal cas e coul d be t oo farr emoved fr om t he j udi ci al pr oces s t o w arr antext endi ng i m m uni tyon thatbas i s . I tt hus r ej ect ed t he ar gum entt hatl egal advi ce i s cat egor i cal l y“of a j udi ci al natur e bec aus e the p ro se c u to r is, lik e a ju d g e , ca lled u p o n to re n d e r o p in io n s c o n c e rn in g th e leg a lityJ us t i ce Sca l i a, i n a conc ur r ence , w oul d have gone fur ther . H e conc l uded 11 t hatt her e i s “no abs ol ut e i m m uni tyforpr ocur i ng a s ear ch w arr ant ” s i nce thatact i s s o far“r emoved fr om t he j udi ci al phas e of c r i m i nal pr ocee di ngs t han the ac tof a pr os ecut ori n s eeki ng an i ndi ctm ent . ” 500 U . S. at504–05 ( quot i ng Mal l ey v . B r iggs , 4 7 5 U . S . 3 3 5 , 3 4 2

– 4 3 (19 8 6 )). -29- of conduc t . ” Id. a t 4 9 3 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). N o tin g it h a d p re v io u sly rejec ted th e e x ten sio n o f a b so lu te im m u n ityto p o lice o ffice rs, th e C o u rt fo u n d it “i ncongruous t o al l ow pr os ecut or s t o be abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om l i abi l i tyfor g iv in g a d v ice to th e p o lice , b u t to a llo w p o lice o ffice rs o n lyq u a lifie d im m u n ity forfol l ow i ng [that ] advi ce. ” Id . a t 4 9 5 . T he C our tal s o r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s ar gum entthat“gi vi ng l egal a d v ice is re late d to a p ro se c u to r’s ro le[ ] in sc re e n in g c a se s fo r p ro se c u tio n a n d in s afe guar di ng t he fa i r nes s of the cr i m i nal j udi ci al pr oces s . ” Id . A s the C o u rt poi nt ed out , “A l m os tanyact i on bya pr os ecut or , i ncl udi ng hi s orherdi r ect par t i ci pat i on i n pur el yi nves t i gat i ve ac t i vi ty , coul d be s ai d t o be i n s om e w ay r el at ed t o t he ul t i m at e dec i s i on w hethert o pr os ecut e. ” Id. “W e do notbel i eve, h o w e v e r, th a t ad v isin g th e p o lice in th e in v e stig a tiv e p h a se o f a c rim in a l ca se is so ‘in tim a telya ss o c iate d w ith th e ju d icia l p h a se o f th e c rim in a l p ro c e ss ,’ th a t it qual i fi es forabs ol ut e i m m uni t y . ” Id. at493 ( quot i ng Im bl er , 4 2 4 U . S . at 43 0 ). 11 T o q u a lifyfo r a b so lu te im m u n ity , the n , an a c tio n m u st b e “ c lo se ly as s oci at ed w i t h t he j udi ci al pr oces s . ” Id . at495. A dvi s i ng pol i ce on in te rr o g a tio n m e th o d s o r “ th e e x is te n c e o f p ro b a b le c a u s e ” d o e s n o t q u a lif y . Id. at487.-30-

T h e S u p re m e C o u rt re fin e d th e in v e stig a tiv e /ad v o c a c yd istin c tio n in B uckley v . F i tzs i m m ons , 509 U . S. 259 ( 1993) . I n thatcas e, the pl ai nt i ff a ccus ed pr os ecut or s of fa br i cat i ng evi dence dur i ng the pr el i m i naryi nves t i gat i on of a c r i m e . I n fi n d i n g t h e p r e t r i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s n o te n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y, t he C our temphasi zed, “W e have notr etr eat ed . . . fr om the pr i nci pl e [a r t i cul at ed i n B ur ns ] t hatact s under t aken bya pr os ecut ori n pr epar i ng forthe i ni t i at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs orfort r i al , and w hi ch occ uri n the cour s e of hi s r ol e as an advoca t e fort he St at e, ar e ent i t l ed t o the pr ot ect i ons of abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . ” Id. at273. B utt her e i s “a di ffe r ence betw een the advoc at e’ s r ol e i n eval uat i ng evi dence and i nt ervi ew i ng w i t nes s es as he pr epar es fortr i al , on the one ha nd, and t he det ect i ve’ s r ol e i n s ear chi ng forthe cl ues and corr obor at i on thatm i ghtgi ve hi m pr obabl e ca us e t o r ecomm end thata s us pectbe arr es t ed, on the otherhand. ” Id . T he C our tul t i m at el yconcl uded that , w her e ther e i s no comm on- l aw tr adi t i on o f im m u n ityfo r a f

u n c tio n , a p ro se c u to r “ n e ith e r is, n o r sh o u ld c o n sid e r h im se lf t o be, an advoc at e befor e he ha s pr obabl e caus e t o have a ny one arr es t ed. ” Id. at 274 & n. 5. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt’s fin a l an d m o st re c e n t ca se o n p ro se c u to ria l im m u n ity i s s i m i l ar l yi ns t ruct i ve. I n Kal i na v. F l etcher , 522 U . S. 118 ( 1997) , a pr os ecut or w as s ued forher( 1) pr epar at i on and fi l i ng of an i nform at i on and mot i on foran arr es tw arr ant , and ( 2) at t es t at i on t o the truth of the fa ct s cont ai ned i n the a c c o m p a n y in g a ffid a v it. T h e C o u rt fo u n d a b so lu te im m u n ityfo r th e first a c tiv ity-31-

butnotfort he s econd. I tconcl uded the pr epar at i on and fi l i ng of the i nform at i on and mot i on “w as par tof the advoc at e’ s funct i on, ” id . at129, s i nce s he w as act i ng as an advoc at e i n “herdr aft i ng of the ce r t i fi cat i on, herdet erm i nat i on thatthe evi dence w as s uffi ci ent l ys t r ong t o j us t i fya pr obabl e- caus e fi ndi ng, herdeci s i on to fil e c h arg es, an d h er p rese n tat ion o f th e info rm ati o n an d the m o ti o n to the co u rt

. . . i ndeed, even the s el ect i on of the part i cul arfac t s t o i ncl ude i n the ce r t i fi cat i on t o pr ovi de the evi dent i arys uppor tforthe fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. ” Id . a t 1 3 0 . I n contr as t , at t es t i ng t o t he ac cur acyof the fa ct s i n the affi davi t , the p ro s e c u to r w a s a c tin g a s a c o m p la in in g w itn e s s ra th e r t h a n a la w y e r. Id . a t 1 2 9 . T he key , acc or di ng t o t he C our t , w as w hetherthe t as k “i nvol ved the exe r ci s e of pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent , ” notm er el ythe r evi ew of the “truth orfal s i tyof the fa ctual s t at ement s t hemsel ves . ” Id. a t 1 3 0 .

b. Tenth Cir cuitFr am ew ork. W e h a v e a p p l i e d th e a b o v e S u p r e me C o u rtp rec ed en t i n a v arietyo f c o n texts. In R ober ts v. K l i ng , 104 F. 3d 316, 319 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ), fo r e x a m p le, w e fo u n d a b so lu te im m u n itya p p lied to a d e p u ty d i s t r i c ta t t o r n e yw h o a p p r o v e d a c r i m i n a l c o m p l a i n tfo rp r o s e c u t i o n . We em p h asize d , h o w ev er, th at ou rs i s a “ co n ti n u u m b ase d ap p roa ch ” a n d the “ m o re d ista n t a f

u n c tio n is f

ro m th e ju d icia l p ro c e ss , the les s lik e lya b so lu te im m u n ity w i l l at t ach. ” Id. at318–19 ( quot i ng G agan v. Nor t on , 3 5 F .3 d 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 7 5 (1 0 th C i r . 1994) ) . T he “de t erm i nat i ve fa ct ori s ‘ advoca cy ’ beca us e thati s the-32-

pr os ecut or ’ s m ai n funct i on and the one mostaki n t o hi s quas i -j udi ci al r ol e. ” 104 F .3 d a t 3 1 9 . B ut“abs ol ut e i m m uni t ym ayat t ach e ven t o . . . admi ni s tr at i ve or i nves t i gat i ve ac t i vi t i es w hen thes e func t i ons ar e nec es s arys o thata pr os ecut or m ayful fi l l hi s funct i on as an off i cerof the court . ” P

f ei f f er v. Hart

f ord F i re Ins. C o. , 9 2 9 F .2 d 1 4 8 4 , 1 4 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). T h u s, w e h a v e fo u n d a b so lu te p ro s e c u to ri a l im m u n ity fo r ( 1 ) p re p a ra tio n a n d in itia tio n o f c h a rg e s , i d. ; ( 2) p ro s e c u tin g c iv il a n d a d m in is tr a tiv e e n fo rc e m e n t p ro c e e d in g s , Sn e ll v. Tu n n e ll , 920 F. 2d 673 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ; and ( 3) i nves t i gat i ng and fi l i ng a comm i t m ent p ro c e e d in g , Sco t tv. Hern , 2 1 6 F .3 d 8 9 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).

c . S u m m a r

y. A s t he above cas es demonstr at e, ther e i s no br i ghtl i ne betw een a dvocac yand i nves t i gat i on. I ti s cl earthata pr os ecut or ’ s courtr oom c o n d u c t fa lls o n th e a d v o c a c ys id e o f th e lin e . B uckley , 5 0 9 U .S . at 2 7 4 . A n d it i s e q u a llyc lea r th a t ad v o c a c yis n o t li m ited to fili n g c rim in a l ch a rg e s o r a rg u in g in th e c o u rt ro o m . Id . at27 2. T hu s, especi al l yw hen con si deri ng pre- i nd i ct m ent act s, it i s im p o rta n t to c o n sid e r o th e r fa c to rs, s u c h a s (1 ) w h e th e r th e a c tio n is c lo se ly a s s o c ia te d w ith th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s , B ur ns , 50 0 U . S . at49 5, (2) w hetheri ti s a u n iq u e ly p ro s e c u to ri a l f u n c tio n , id . at491 n. 7, and ( 3) w hetheri tr equi r es the e x e rc is e o f

p ro fe s s io n a l ju d g m e n t, Kal i na , 5 2 2 U .S . a t 1 3 0 . I n s um , a pr os ecut ori s ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni tyforthos e ac t i ons that c a s t h im in th e ro le o f a n a d v o c a te in itia tin g a n d p re s e n tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e .-33-

A b so lute im m u n ity , h o w ev er, do es n o t exten d to tho se a cti o n s tha t are i nves t i gat i ve oradmi ni s t r at i ve i n natur e, i ncl udi ng the pr ovi s i on of l egal advi ce o u ts id e th e s e ttin g o f

a p ro s e c u tio n . See I

m bl er , 4 2 4 U .S . at 4 3 0

– 3 1 ; B ur ns , 500 U . S. at486, 493–94. 2. A ppl i c at i on W e now tur n t o w hetherabs ol ut e i m m uni tyappl i es t o the deputydi s tr i ct a tto rn e y ’s re v ie w o f

th e a ffid a v it in s u p p o rt o f th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t in M in k ’s c a s e . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctatt or neyw as notw ear i ng t he h a t o f a n a d v o c a te a n d , th u s , is n o t e n title d to a b s o lu te p ro s e c u to ri a l im m u n ity. A s a pr el i m i narym at t er , t he di s tr i ctatt orneydoes notcont end s he ac t ed as an advoc at e “i nt i m at el yi nvol ved” i n a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng. R ather , s he al l eges her r ol e w as l i m i t ed t o r evi ew and appr oval of the s ear ch w arr antappl i cat i on; s he does no teven con t end she eva l uated w hetherprobab l e cause ex i st ed to arres tor pres s char ges . A tt he t i m e s he r evi ew ed the affi davi t , m or eover , pol i ce ha d onl ythe al l egat i ons of Pr ofes s orPeake a nd had noty etconfi r m ed the author s hi p of the ar t i cl es cont ai ned i n Th e Ho w lin gP ig . Itis ob v iou s the sea rch o f M ink ’s reside n ce w as p art of

a c o n ti n u ing effo rtto o b tai n ev iden ce an d the a tt o rne y ’s revi ew w as, atm ost , l egal advice as t o the suffi ci encyof the affidavi t . Iti s al so cl eart hatt he di s t r i ctat t or neyw as farfr om fi l i ng char ges atthe t i m e of the s ear ch, and s ubs equentevent s s how t hatt he off i ce c ame t o bel i eve the ca s e coul d notbe pr os ecut ed.-34-

S e c o n d , the re v iew o f th e a ffid a v it ca n n o t b e sa id to b e a u n iq u e ly pr os ecut or i al r ol e. W hi l e i ti s l audabl e thata l egal r evi ew occurbefor e the pol i ce pr ocee d t o a magi s t r at e fora w arr ant , the Supr eme C our tm ade i tcl eari n B ur ns t hata l egal r evi ew fort he s uffi ci encyof evi dence t o s uppor tpr obabl e ca us e i s not s uffi ci entt o confe rabs ol ut e i m m uni ty . A bs ol ut e i m m uni tyappl i es t o the “pr os ecut or ’ s r ol e i n j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , notforeveryl i t i gat i on- i nduci ng conduct . ” B ur ns , 5 0 0 U .S . at 4 9 4 . A n d w h ile it m a ya t ti m e s b e d ifficu lt t o di s cern t he l i ne betw een “ i nves t i gat i on” and “ advoca cy , ” her e w e do noteven have a cas e w her e the pr os ecut orw as pr epar i ng forher“r ol e as advoca t e forthe St at e. ” B uckley , 509 U . S. at271. N o one s ugges t s thatthe di s tr i ctat t or neyw as p re p a rin g fo r a ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g in m e re lyre v iew in g th e a ffid a v it. Fi nal l y , al t hough t he r evi ew of the affi davi tcan be s ai d t o r equi r e the exer ci s e of pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent , thati s true eve ryt i m e a pr os ecut orpr ovi des l egal advi ce. U ndert he Supr eme C our t ’ s funct i onal appr oach, w e l ook t o w hi ch r ol e the pr os ecut ori s per form i ng— advoca t e ori nves t i gat or . H er e, the r evi ew of t he affi davi ts quar el yfal l s on t he s i de of i nves t i gat or yl egal advi ce, and not a d v o c a c yb e fo re a ju d icia l b o d y . T h e d e p u tyd istric t atto rn e yp layed n o ro le in pr epar i ng t he affi davi t , norw as s he i nvol ved i n pr epar i ng, anal y zi ng, and pr es ent i ng pl eadi ngs t o a court . I f s he w er e, thi s w oul d be qui t e a di ffe r entcas e. W e a ck n o w ledg e this co n clus ion is co m p li ca ted b ytho se c ase s w h ere p ro se c u to rs h a v e b e e n a b so lu telyim m u n ize d fo r d ra f tin g , filin g , an d a rg u in g in-35-

s u p p o rt o f

a n a rr e s t o r s e a rc h w a rr a n t. See Kal i na , 52 2 U . S . at12 9– 31 (arres t w a rra n t); B ur ns , 500 U . S. at487 ( s ear ch w arr ant ) . A nd the Supr eme C our thas expl i ci t l yr ecogni zed “ t he i s s uance of a s ear ch w arr anti s unques t i onabl ya j udi ci al act . ” B ur ns , 5 0 0 U . S . at 49 2 . In th o se c ase s, h o w ev er, the pr os ecut orw as act i ng a s a n a d v o c a te

— e v a lu a tin g e v id e n c e , p re p a ri n g p le a d in g s , a n d a p p e a ri n g in c o u rt . I tm aybe true thata l aw y er ’ s m or e ac t i ve i nvol vementi n pr epar i ng a w arr ant ap p li ca ti o n an d p rese n ti n g itin co u rt w ill c o n fe r a b so lu te im m u n ity . B u t in th is c a se th e p ro se c u to r’s f u n c tio n w a s n o t th a t o f a n a d v o c a te; h e r f

u n c tio n w a s to pr ovi de l egal advi ce out s i de the courtr oom t o ai d a nas centi nves t i gat i on. T he “pr emi s e of B ur ns w as t hat , i n pr ovi di ng advi ce t o the pol i ce, the pr os ecut oract ed t o gui de the pol i ce, nott o pr epar e hi s ow n cas e. ” B uckley , 509 U . S. at285 (K e n n e d y , J ., c o n c u rr in g ). H e re , th e p ro s e c u to r w a s n o t p re p a ri n g h e r c a s e . A ccor di ngl y , i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , i m m uni tydoes notat t ach. T h e d istric t atto rn e yu rg e s u s to c o n sid e r h e r re lian c e o n C o lo ra d o law in s uppor tof a f

i ndi ng of abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . C ol or ado l aw r equi r es di s tr i ct at t orney s t o “rend er, i n thei r quasi -j ud i ci al capac i ty , l egal advice t o p eace o ffi cers , upon t he r eques tof s uch off i cer s orof the court , pert ai ni ng t o the pr epar at i on and rev iew o f a ffidav it s an d w arran ts fo r arrests, sea rch es, seizu res . . . ” a n d co n fe rs “i m m un[i t y ] fr om l i abi l i t y ” unders t at e l aw . C ol o. R ev. St at . § 20- 1- 106. 1. A s t he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ynot ed, how ever , a s t at e s t atut e— even one r equi r i ng affirm ati v e a cti o n — ca n n o t create im m u n ityfro m a fed era l ci v il ri g h ts cl aim w h ere-36-

th e f u n c tio n a l a n a lysis s u g g e s ts o th e rw is e . How l et tv. R ose , 496 U . S. 356, 375–76 ( 1990) . A nd undert he Supr eme C our t ’ s funct i onal anal y s i s w e l ook t o w hatthe a tto rn e yd id

— s h e p ro v id e d le g a l a d v ic e — a n d n o t to w h a t s ta te la w re q u ir e s . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng M in k ' s d a m a g e s c laim o n th e g ro u n d th a t itw a s b a rre d b yth e d o c trin e o f a b so lu te i m m uni t y . T he deputydi s t r i ctat t or ney , how ever , m aybe ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi f s he r eas onabl yconcl uded pr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed t o s uppor tthe w arr ant appl i cat i on , or that the ap pli cat i on of the S up rem e C ou rt ’s F i rs t A m endmentcas es t o t he cr i m i nal l i bel s t atut e w as notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed under t he ci r cumst ance s her e. T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ad d re ss th e a p p lica tio n o f q u a lifie d im m u n ityin t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , a n d we d e c l i n e t o d o s o i n th e fi r s ti n s t a n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we re m a n d th a t is s u e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . I V . C oncl usi on W e A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of M ink ’s claim s fo r de clarato ry r el i ef a nd fordamages undert he Pr i vacyPr ot ect i on A ct . W e R E V E R SE the d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to d ism iss M in k ’s c laim fo r d a m a g e s b a se d o n a b so lu te p rose cu tori al i m m u n ity , an d R E M A N D fo r co n side rati o n o f th e d istri ct att o rne y ’s c la im fo r q u a lifie d im m u n ity.