Opinion ID: 2978087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Absolute Testimonial Immunity

Text: As an initial matter, we note that, to the extent that Moldowan’s claims against Fournier rely on allegations that she offered perjured testimony at trial, Fournier is entitled to absolute immunity. Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 345. Fournier is entitled to immunity regardless of whether she conspired to deliver false or incomplete testimony. See Alioto v. City of Shevely, 835 F.2d 1173, 1174 (6th Cir. 1987) (“The doctrine enunciated in Briscoe v. LaHue also shields from liability alleged conspiracies to give false and incomplete testimony in judicial proceedings.”). Moldowan argues that Fournier is not entitled to testimonial immunity under Briscoe because she was the “complaining witness.” As noted above, the Supreme Court has excluded from the scope of protections offered by the doctrine of absolute immunity any conduct taken as the “complaining witnesses,” such as where a police officer submits a false affidavit in support of an arrest warrant application. See Malley, 475 U.S. at 340-41. The record, however, plainly shows that Detective Ingles, not Fournier, functioned as the complaining witness in submitting the August 14, 1990 criminal complaint against Moldowan.23 (J.A. 2238.) The criminal complaint identifies Fournier only as the “victim or complainant.” (J.A. 2238.) This is no mere formal distinction. Fournier did not submit an affidavit to secure the arrest warrant, nor did she take any other actions to initiate Moldowan’s arrest or prosecution that courts previously have found critical in applying the complaining witness exception. Although Fournier’s identification of Moldowan as one of her attackers certainly was critical to Detective Ingles’ decision to file a criminal complaint 23 In fact, Moldowan’s Third Amended Complaint explicitly acknowledges that “Defendant Ingles signed [the] Complaint as the complaining witness charging Jeffrey Moldowan with four felonies.” (J.A. 275.) Nos. 07-2115/2116/2117 Moldowan v. City of Warren, et al. Page 55 against Moldowan and the Macomb County Prosecutor’s decision to pursue Moldowan’s prosecution, her statements were only part of a broader, independent investigation. As the record shows, the police also were led to Moldowan by statements from Fournier’s sister, Moldowan’s prior arrests, and other evidence. In fact, Detective Ingles testified that he did not speak to Fournier until two days after the assault, during which time his investigation proceeded without her assistance. By the time Detective Ingles interviewed Fournier, he already had identified Moldowan as a likely suspect. Given Fournier’s limited role leading up to Moldowan’s arrest, and in light of the independent inquiry conducted by the police, extending the complaining witness exception to Fournier in this case would run counter to the functional analysis we must apply in this context. See Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 774 (6th Cir. 2000) (“Absolute immunity is determined by a functional analysis that looks to ‘the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.’” (quoting Buckley, 509 U.S. at 269)).