Opinion ID: 887862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The stalking complaint and prosecution

Text: ¶ 31 Rosenthal argues that Zenker improperly participated in the investigation and gave legal advice to the Undersheriff who had been assigned to the stalking case. The State and Zenker contend that all of the conduct of which Rosenthal complains centers around the initiation and prosecution of criminal charges, for which absolute immunity attaches. ¶ 32 After several complaints by the Kruers, Sheriff Schenck forwarded the complaints to Zenker for a determination on how to proceed. After reading the chronology, Zenker wrote a letter to Schenck on April 1, 2003, in which Zenker advised Schenck to go ahead with a thorough investigation. Zenker asked the Sheriff to [p]lease assign an officer to conduct a further investigation and provide me with a report. Among the things you deem necessary, please ask the officer to recover all evidence referred to in the chronology (Copies of all letters, emails, telephone answering machine tapes, etc.). Also the officer should please ask the Kruers to provide a written statement regarding whether, and to what degree they suffered substantial emotional distress. Finally, I recommend that the investigating officer offer the suspect the opportunity to make a statement. Specifically, the officer should ask for clarification of the purpose of his continued attempts to communicate with the Kruers despite their repeated attempts that he not do so. ¶ 33 After the investigator compiled the complaints and performed his investigation, he forwarded the information to Zenker at the Madison County Attorney's Office. Zenker in turn sent the file to the Attorney General's Office for further handling, asking them to review the file and prosecute any charges that the Attorney General deemed viable. Zenker properly handed the case off to the Attorney General precisely because Zenker concluded that further participation in the case could be perceived as a conflict. While Zenker may have encouraged the Attorney General to prosecute the case, the ultimate decision to file a complaint was made by the Attorney General and not Zenker. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Zenker was entitled, at the very least, to qualified immunity for those actions.