Document: 522 U.S. 118118 S.Ct. 502139 L.Ed.2d 471 Lynne KALINA, Petitioner,v.Rodney FLETCHER. No. 96-792. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 7, 1997. Decided Dec. 10, Syllabus * Following customary practice, petitioner prosecuting attorney commenced criminal proceedings by filing three documents in Washington state court: (1) an unsworn information charging respondent with burglary; (2) motion for arrest warrant; and (3) a "Certification Determination Probable Cause,'' which she summarized evidence supporting charge swore to truth alleged facts " [u]nder penalty perjury.'' Based on certification, trial court found probable cause, was arrested spent day jail. Later, however, charges against him were dismissed prosecutor's motion. Focusing two inaccurate factual statements petitioner's sued her damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that had violated his constitutional right be free from unreasonable seizures. The Federal District denied summary judgment, holding not entitled absolute prosecutorial immunity whether qualified would apply question fact. Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: Section 1983 may create remedy prosecutor making false fact affidavit application warrant, since such conduct is protected doctrine immunity. Pp. ___-___. (a) Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 409, 410, 430-431, 96 984, 985, 994-996, 47 128, subsequent cases recognize fully when performing traditional functions advocate, see, e.g., Buckley Fitzsimmons, 509 259, 273, 113 2606, 2615-2616, 125 209, but only he acting as where complaining witness presenting judge complaint establish cause arrest, see Malley Briggs, 475 335, 340-341, 106 1092, 1095-1096, 89 271. Under these cases, activities connection preparation warrant clearly are part advocate's function. Indeed, except act personally attesting averments third document well. (b) However, rather than lawyer executed certification perjury,'' and, insofar did so, §1983 provide respondent. Since Fourth Amendment requirement warrants based "upon supported Oath or affirmation'' satisfied mere signed prosecutor, Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 117, 95 854, 864-865, 43 54, most prosecutions information, law requires either "or sworn testimony establishing grounds issuing warrant.'' Petitioner's designed satisfy those requirements, neither federal nor made it necessary make certification. argument execution just one incident presentation that, viewed whole, work advocate unavailing. Although exercise professional judgment informed other actions, could affect falsity contained Testifying about function witness, lawyer. No matter how brief succinct be, evidentiary component distinct essential predicate finding cause. Even person who makes constitutionally required "Oath lawyer, performs witness. final argument, denying will have "chilling effect'' prosecutors administration justice, unpersuasive. 93 F.3d 653, STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. SCALIA, filed concurring opinion, THOMAS, joined. Norman Maleng, Seattle, WA, petitioner. Particia A. Millett, amicus curiae. Timothy K. Ford, Justice STEVENS 1 presented creates whether, contends, "the immunity.'' 2 Petitioner Deputy Prosecuting Attorney King County, Washington. December 14, 1992, proceeding County Superior Two documents-an burglary warrant-were pleadings. theft computer equipment school. 3 Criminal Rules require "sworn warrant.''1 To requirement, document-a Cause''-that charge. She vouched set forth perjury.2 ordered issued. 4 statements. After noting respondent's fingerprints been glass partition school, stated "never associated school any manner permission enter take property.''3 In fact, installed partitions premises authorized also employee electronics store identified "from photo montage'' asked appraisal stolen school.4 identify respondent.5 5 Respondent About month later, II 6 brought this action Rev. Stat. §1979, amended, seeking violation determining immunity, we accept allegations true. See 261, 2609, 209 (1993). Respondent's focuses certification.6 moved ground commence procure immunity.''7 motion, fact.8 Appeals 7 first noted our decision 271 (1986), "a police officer secures without cannot assert defense,'' then observed "actions writing, signing declaration warrant'' "virtually identical officer's actions Malley.'' Fletcher Kalina, 655-656 (1996). Relying functional approach endorsed concluded "it "incongruous' expose potential liability while protecting same act.'' F.3d, at 656. 8 acknowledged Sixth reached different result Joseph Patterson, 795 F.2d 549, 555 cert. denied, 481 1023, 107 1910, 516 (1987), case predated Buckley. Because never squarely addressed held liable obtaining granted certiorari resolve conflict. 519 ----, 117 1079, 137 214 (1997). We now affirm. III 9 codification §1 Civil Rights Act 1871.9 text statute purports every official person's statutory rights.10 coverage thus broader pre-existing common torts. nevertheless recognized Congress intended construed light common-law principles well settled time its enactment. Tenney Brandhove, 341 367, 71 783, L.Ed. 1019 (1951); Briscoe LaHue, 460 325, 330, 103 1108, 1112-1113, 75 (1983). Thus, examined identifying both elements defenses available actors. 10 128 (1976), former prisoner whose conviction aside collateral maintain litigated him. precedent, perhaps even more importantly policy considerations underlying acted within scope duties initiating pursuing prosecution'' amenable suit §1983. Id., S.Ct., 985. 11 Liberally construed, Imbler's included prosecution wrongfully commenced, offered exculpatory suppressed. His claims specific antecedent. Nevertheless, relying decisions providing tort prosecute malicious unsupported cause,11 defamation during trial,12 should analogous defense asserted Imbler. justified affording applied equally functions. 12 Those interest harassing litigation divert attention enabling independent "deciding suits bring conducting them court.'' 424, 992. lend support all occupant office whereas latter applicable discretion. Our later clear proper functioning office, occupant, primary importance. 13 Imbler, attempt define outer limits rationale encompass some activities. Pachtman's "activities intimately judicial phase process, reasons full force,'' id., 430, 995, put side "those aspects responsibility cast role administrator investigative advocate.'' 995. 14 Subsequent confirmed importance process serving proceedings. Burns Reed, 500 478, 111 1934, 114 547 (1991), after consensus among Courts concerning before grand juries, 490, n. 6, 1941 appearance search hearing 492, 1942-43. And Buckley, categorically "acts undertaken preparing initiation trial, occur course State, protections U.S., 2615. 15 unavailable Burns, provision legal advice their pretrial investigation qualified, absolute, 492-496, 1942-1945. Similarly, press conference, 276-278, 2617-2618, allegedly fabricated unsolved crime. With reference holding, explained: 16 "There difference between evaluating interviewing witnesses prepares hand, detective's searching clues corroboration might give recommend suspect arrested, hand. When normally performed detective officer, "neither appropriate justifiable act, protect other.' Hampton Chicago, 484 602, 608 (C.A.7 1973) (internal quotation marks omitted), 415 917, 94 1413, 39 (1974). if plans executes raid suspected weapons cache, "has no greater claim complete officers direction.' F.2d, 608-609.'' 273-274, 2616. 17 These protects grounded special "esteem perform functions, certainly desire shield abuses because lesser degree impair itself.'' Malley, 342, 1097. examine nature performed, identity actor it.'' Forrester White, 219, 229, 108 538, 545, 98 (1988).13 This point best illustrated determination senior enforcement Nation-the General States-is engaged performance national Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 105 2806, 86 411 (1985). 18 considered, rejected, theories accorded caused unconstitutional failed comparable actually militated subject law.14 19 second rested similarity often prosecutors. As 20 "As alternative claiming draws analogy requesting asks jury indict suspect. Like argues, must discretionary him, like threat retaliatory lawsuits hangs over urges us read giving enjoyed prosecutor. Cf. (1976). 21 ..... 22 . intend disrespect applying observing action, vital further removed indictment. Furthermore, analogy, has force, does account indictment step conviction. Exposing initial interfere work, come terms effect liability. central process.'' 341-343, 23 quite documents-the warrant-are seems package critical question, turn question. IV 24 affirmation''-a returned jury, 54 (1975); Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 91 2022, 29 564 (1971). Accordingly, requires, compliance command, warrant.''15 Cause'' requirements. 25 certified perjury, doing competent performed. following practice routinely employed colleagues predecessors Washington, surely prevalent parts country mandated County. Neither amici argue follow practice.16 tradition, ethics profession, generally instruct counsel avoid risks participating proceeding.17 26 argues certificate integral prosecution. That characterization drafting sufficiently strong justify probable-cause finding, file charges, court. Each matters involved judgment; indeed, selection particular include advocate. But themselves. 27 Finally, justice.18 persuaded. 28 It true abandon recited pattern procedures Nation. presents justice harmed followed. respects, addresses concerns affected merely hold do depart prior 431, 995-996; 2615-2616. 30 Affirmed. 31 whom THOMAS joins, concurring. 32 I agree Ms. Kalina essentially "function'' so join write separately shame opinions reflect awareness "functional'' questions produced curious inversions existed 1871, enacted. A conscientious reading conclude there seek warrant. rule was, sense, exactly opposite. 33 There course, thing (Indeed, points out, ante, __, 11, modern public prosecutor.) "judicial'' judges, jurors jurors, members courts martial, private arbitrators, various assessors commissioners. extended individuals charged resolving disputes parties authoritatively adjudicating rights. officials involve actual adjudication, they "quasi-judicial'' defeated showing malice, hence akin what call "qualified,'' continue believe "prosecutorial form considered quasi-judicial.'' 500, 1947, (1991) (SCALIA, dissenting part). 34 conclusion accords law's treatment prosecutors, once commonly delegated citizen initiated procured (and can still) prosecution-but maliciously ultimately terminated defendant's favor. although (sometimes called "complaining witnesses''), servants, quasi-judicial kind built into tort. 35 relevant being tried. attorneys, allegation statement false. See, F. Hilliard, Law Torts 319 (1866). slander libel actions. 36 At law, therefore, something resembling tortious Fletcher, attach prove malicious, unsuccessful. Kalina's actionable (although malice suit), privilege defamation. 37 Court's long road is, superficially least, opposite today's began Then, (1983), similar supra, additional "functional category'' witness.'' category overturned directed verdict favor plaintiff said: 38 [C]omplaining absolutely immune law. accepted issuance submitting Given lack complainant 1095-1096. correct, implies distinction "witnesses'' (absolutely immune) witnesses'' (at qualifiedly little foundation 1871. kinds witness; "In then, Malley's discussion feint. awaking type much recognizing action-the prosecution.'' Comment, Police Witness Immunity 56 U. Chi. L.Rev. 1433, 1454 (1989). By decided, methodology forced express issue Briscoe, 1119 ("our indicate analysis rests categories''). inventing new category: (in specially-tailored history) §1983,'' jurisprudence closer results achieved. 40 analytical upon analysis'' faithfully replicate demonstrated today. describing subset actors witnesses, '' testifying event. witness'' ever provided testimony, procuring prosecution; "witness'' misleading. confusion less harmless. Here, collide produce stands head: challenging changes categories'' personal 41 principle imposed faithful adherence embodied very difficult. deeply embedded stare decisis, now. concessions, distortion term close answer likely get. places category, precedents. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. Rule 2.2(a); Wash. Rev.Code §9A.72.085 (1994) (providing, inter alia, perjury equivalent affidavit). Accord, Local 2.2. App. 20. 19-20. 5. 5-6. 10. 21. 1116-1117, Title provides: "Every who, color statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, State Territory Columbia, subjects, causes subjected, jurisdiction thereof deprivation rights, privileges, immunities secured Constitution laws, shall party injured equity, redress .'' 421-422, 990-991. cited decided 1871 persons early Savile Roberts, Ld. Raym. 374, Eng. Rep. 1147 (K.B.1699); Hill Miles, N.H. (1837); M. Bigelow, Leading Cases 193-204 (1875). common. Langbein, Origins Public Prosecution Common Law, Am. J. Legal Hist. 313, 316 (1973); Kress, Progress Prosecution, 423 Annals Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 99, 100-102 (1976); White Frank, 855 956, 962 (C.A.2 1988) (noting availability curtailed growth prosecutor''). drew guidance American addressing importantly, firmly established rules judges jurors. 423, 20, 991 (discussing prosecutors); Bradley Fisher, Wall. 347, 646 (1871); Yates Lansing, Johns. 282 (N.Y.1810) (Kent, C. J.); Note, Liability Quasi-Judicial Acts, 73 Pa. 300, 303, (1925). 439-440, 999-1000 (White, judgment). Examining recent innovation. Ex parte Virginia, 100 339, 348, 676 (1879), [w]hether done [a judge] determined character, character agent.'' Wall., (examining act'' judge). that: affords petitioner.'' 1096, (1986) (footnote omitted). 2.2(a) "A affidavit, determine Amicus Curiae out typically attest [i]nstead agent ordinarily attests facts.'' Brief 7. Amici Thirty-Nine Counties local counties beyond information. 2. Professional Conduct 3.7 ("A witness,'' unless four narrow exceptions apply); ABA Model (1992). 25.

Category: 1