Opinion ID: 755373
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Garretto's Action in Planning the Sting

Text: 7 (a) Absolute immunity. A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for acts taken in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, whether at a trial, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), a preliminary hearing, see Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 487-92, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991), or a bail hearing, see Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1149-50 (2d Cir.1995). Such immunity also extends to acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). However, when a prosecutor 'functions as an administrator' ... [or] performs the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer, he is eligible only for qualified immunity. See id. (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984); Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83 (2d Cir.1994). 8 Although all investigative activity could be considered in some sense to be preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings, Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, the Supreme Court has sought to draw a line between those preparatory steps that a prosecutor takes to be an effective advocate of a case already assembled and those investigative steps taken to gather evidence. The Court has identified evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses as falling on the absolute immunity side of the line, leaving searching for the clues and corroboration that might lead to a recommendation for an arrest on the qualified immunity side. See id. The Court has also identified plan[ning] and execut[ing] a raid as another example of action enjoying only qualified immunity. See id. at 274, 113 S.Ct. 2606. 9 In Buckley, the prosecutor's action of obtaining allegedly fabricated expert testimony sharply divided the Supreme Court in the application of the preparation/investigation standard. The majority ruled that the prosecutor was entitled at most only to qualified immunity, id. at 272-76, 113 S.Ct. 2606, while a four-justice dissent would have accorded him absolute immunity, id. at 282, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (Kennedy, J., with whom Rehnquist, C.J., and White and Souter, JJ., join, dissenting in part). In the pending case, Garretto's action in orchestrating a sting designed to catch Bodak accepting a bribe is decidedly on the investigation side of the line. In no sense was Garretto preparing for the presentation of an existing case; he was doing police work in the hope that his target would succumb to temptation and thereby furnish evidence on which a prosecution could be based. Such conduct is not shielded by absolute immunity. 10 (b) Qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith belief that the action taken was lawful. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep't of Social Services, 911 F.2d 863, 866 (2d Cir.1990). The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). 11 Bodak's allegation in the pending case--that he was entrapped in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights--lies at the intersection of two principles. On the one hand, it has been held that an investigative officer's participation in an entrapment does not violate the target's constitutional rights, even though entrapment might be established as a defense to the criminal charge. See DiBlasio v. City of New York, 102 F.3d 654, 656-57 (2d Cir.1996); Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737, 739 (3d Cir.1967); Johnston v. National Broadcasting Co., 356 F.Supp. 904, 907-08 (E.D.N.Y.1973). On the other hand, governmental action taken in retaliation for the exercise of free speech rights normally violates the First Amendment, see Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), and this principle has been applied to the retaliatory initiation of lawsuits, see Greenwich Citizens Committee v. Counties of Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency, 77 F.3d 26, 31 & n. 5 (2d Cir.1996). 12 The Supreme Court has pointed out that determining whether a right has been sufficiently established such that a lawsuit for its violation is not insulated by qualified immunity often depends on the level of abstraction at which the right is defined. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Though we must be careful not to define the right in terms of the precise circumstances of a case, an approach so narrow that the defined right would rarely if ever be said to have been previously established, see LaBounty v. Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68, 73 (2d Cir.1998), we think the right at issue here must be defined as a right to be free of a retaliatory entrapment, rather than the more general right to be free of any retaliatory action. The law with respect to retaliatory initiation of litigation has developed with distinct requirements, not directly analogous to the context of other retaliatory actions, such as employment discharges. With retaliatory lawsuits, at least in the civil context, a showing that the retaliatory suit is frivolous seems to be required. See Greenwich Citizens Committee, 77 F.3d at 31 & n. 5; Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Commission, 780 F.2d 1422, 1428 (8th Cir.1986). 13 No case has previously been decided in which an entrapment was ruled to be a retaliatory violation of First Amendment rights. It is therefore not clear whether the First Amendment claimant must show that the criminal case against him was frivolous, or merely lacking in probable cause, or whether he can prevail, as Bodak appears to contend, simply by alleging that although he committed a crime without any apparent inducement, he acted with a benign motive and the prosecutor's motive was retaliatory. However the law might develop with respect to the retaliatory initiation of a plan to see if a target is willing, for whatever reason, to accept the invitation to commit a crime, it was not clearly established at the time of Bodak's acceptance of the offered bribe that Garretto's alleged action violated any constitutionally protected right. For that reason, Bodak's allegations encounter an insuperable defense of qualified immunity. 14