Opinion ID: 2085168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Limits of Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity

Text: We have repeatedly held prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for quasi-judicial activities, i.e., activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. See Hike v. Hall, 427 N.W.2d 158, 159 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 143 (1976)); Burr v. City of Cedar Rapids, 286 N.W.2d 393, 394 (Iowa 1979); Blanton v. Barrick, 258 N.W.2d 306, 309 (Iowa 1977). Consistent with federal precedent, we have explained the reason for the rule in part as follows: The common-law immunity of a prosecutor is based upon the same considerations that underlie the common-law immunities of judges and grand jurors acting within the scope of their duties. These include concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust. Blanton, 258 N.W.2d at 309-10 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 422-23, 96 S.Ct. at 992-93, 47 L.Ed.2d at 139); cf. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 693, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 1643, 137 L.Ed.2d 945, 960 (1997) (In cases involving prosecutors, legislators, and judges we have repeatedly explained that the immunity serves the public interest in enabling such officials to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability.). While these quasi-judicial activities to which absolute immunity attaches may occur inside or outside the courtroom, [a] prosecutor's administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate's preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2615, 125 L.Ed.2d 209, 226 (1993). Thus, the immunity is a function of the specific activities engaged in by a prosecutor, and does not attach simply by virtue of the civil defendant's status as a prosecutor. Hike, 427 N.W.2d at 159. Because we apply a functional analysis, immunity attaches even when the prosecutor is alleged to have acted for improper reasons. See id. at 159 (criminal charges used as leverage in settlement negotiations for a client in an associated civil matter); Burr, 286 N.W.2d at 396 (maliciously filing a complaint without probable cause); Blanton, 258 N.W.2d at 311 (malicious institution of criminal proceedings against a man whose wife the prosecutor was representing in their divorce). Immunity, after all, is not for the protection of the prosecutor personally, but for the benefit of the public. Cf. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 418 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. at 989 n. 12, 47 L.Ed.2d at 136 n. 12 (explaining analogous rule for judges). Although genuinely wronged plaintiffs are left without recourse in a civil suit for damages, the alternative would disserve the broader public interest. Id. at 427, 96 S.Ct. at 993, 47 L.Ed.2d at 142. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. Id. at 427-28, 96 S.Ct. at 993-94, 47 L.Ed.2d at 142; cf. Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir.1949) (Hand, J.) (As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done ... than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.). [2] That said, the prosecutor seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939, 114 L.Ed.2d 547, 558 (1991). The presumption is that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties. Id. at 486-87, 111 S.Ct. at 1939, 114 L.Ed.2d at 558. We will be sparing in our recognition of absolute immunity and will not extend it further than its justification warrants. Cf. id. at 487, 111 S.Ct. at 1939, 114 L.Ed.2d at 558-59. The decision to bring criminal charges is clearly intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and therefore the common law of Iowa affords prosecutors absolute immunity for deciding whether to do so. Hike, 427 N.W.2d at 159 (prosecutor immune for deferring charges); Burr, 286 N.W.2d at 396 (signing complaint and making requisite oath or affirmation); Blanton, 258 N.W.2d at 311 (initiating charges); cf. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-31, 96 S.Ct. at 995, 47 L.Ed.2d at 143-44 (initiating and pursuing criminal charges). Although we have not heretofore had occasion to decide the question, we also think this legal principle implies a correlative absolute immunity for a prosecutor's decision not to bring charges. This decision is consistent with the weight of authority. See, e.g., Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 583 (9th Cir.1997); Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37, 40 (1st Cir.1992); Schloss v. Bouse, 876 F.2d 287, 290 (2d Cir.1989); Dohaish v. Tooley, 670 F.2d 934, 938 (10th Cir.1982); see also Turack v. Guido, 464 F.2d 535, 535 (3d Cir.1972); Coon v. Froehlich, 573 F.Supp. 918, 920-21 (S.D.Ohio 1983). The Ninth Circuit, for example, concluded with little difficulty prosecutors enjoyed absolute immunity for the decision not to prosecute cases in which a police officer was involved, because public policy considerations make an even stronger argument for absolute immunity for failure to prosecute than for actual prosecution. The decision to charge a defendant with a crime may well be the most critical determination in the entire prosecutorial process. That decision alone may result in the loss of a defendant's freedom pending trial and certainly will confront him or her with the economic and social costs of a trial. There can be no question that the nature of the decision not to prosecute is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Roe, 109 F.3d at 583. Similarly, the First Circuit concluded a prosecutor's decision not to pursue an officer's cases fell squarely within the scope of [the] immunity.... [T]he interest that prosecutorial immunity is designed to protect  independence in the charging decision  is implicated whether the decision is to initiate a prosecution or decline to do so. Harrington, 977 F.2d at 40. As these same courts have also recognized, the mere fact a prosecutor makes a decision with respect to a class of cases  present and future  as opposed to merely a present case is immaterial, and does not render the action administrative as opposed to quasi-judicial, i.e., absolutely immune. See id. at 42 n. 3; Roe, 109 F.3d at 583-84. [T]here is no meaningful distinction between a decision on prosecution in a single instance and decisions on prosecutions formulated as a policy for general application. Roe, 109 F.3d at 583 (citing Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1269 (D.C.Cir.1987)). In both instances, the prosecutor's decision relates directly to the initiation of prosecutions.... [and t]he prosecutor is fulfilling his role as the officer in the judicial process charged with the responsibility of determining which prosecutions will best serve the public interest. Harrington, 977 F.2d at 42 n. 3. For all the foregoing reasons it is manifest that Phillips is entitled to absolute immunity for the decision not to prosecute the class of cases in which Beck would appear as a witness. To hold otherwise would interfere in a prosecutor's exercise of independent judgment. [3] Such a ruling would thereby undermine one of the recognized policies which give rise to the immunity, insofar as [a] prosecutor is duty bound to exercise his best judgment both in deciding which suits to bring and in conducting them in court. [4] Burr, 286 N.W.2d at 394 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 424, 96 S.Ct. at 992, 47 L.Ed.2d at 140). And under the asymmetrical immunity forged by that holding, the public trust would clearly suffer. See Blanton, 258 N.W.2d at 309-10. Nonetheless, on the facts of this case we find the action about which Beck complains  Phillips's writing of the letters to the police department and the mayor, as opposed to his decision not to prosecute  was not entitled to absolute immunity. In a number of cases, courts have held a prosecutor's mere act of advising police is not a function to which absolute immunity attaches. See, e.g., Burns, 500 U.S. at 492-96, 111 S.Ct. at 1942-45, 114 L.Ed.2d at 562-65 (prosecutor not entitled to absolute immunity when he advised police hypnosis was an acceptable investigative technique). Likewise, a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity when performing an administrative function. See, e.g., D'Iorio v. County of Delaware, 447 F.Supp. 229, 235 (E.D.Pa.1978), rev'd on other grounds, 592 F.2d 681 (3d Cir.1978) (district attorney fired employee after receipt of pictures showing employee in the company of known criminals, for fear they would put office in compromising position; action fell outside prosecutor's absolute immunity and only qualified privilege was available). Determining what constitutes advice or administrative activity, as opposed to a quasi-judicial activity, is often difficult and will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. at 995 n. 33, 47 L.Ed.2d at 144 n. 33; Prince v. Hicks, 198 F.3d 607, 612 (6th Cir.1999). In this case, however, it strains reason too far to characterize Phillips's writing of his letters as an activity intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. In writing these letters, Phillips was not deciding not to prosecute a case, but instead merely advising local law enforcement authorities on how future criminal prosecutions should be conducted and how his office would deal with those cases. Implicitly, Phillips was also performing an administrative function, insofar as he was telling lower-level law enforcement officers how to deal with a potential problem employee in light of his policy. Phillips was acting less as an advocate for the State, and more as the county's law enforcement officer, telling lower-level officials how future prosecutions should be conducted. Indeed, Phillips closed his letters by exhorting each of Beck's supervisors to govern yourself accordingly  subtly but unmistakably advising them not only how to handle future cases, but also Beck's future employment. Because we apply a functional test, Phillips is not entitled to absolute immunity simply because of his status as a prosecutor. Hike, 427 N.W.2d at 159. Phillips's letters did not, in themselves, involve the initiation of a prosecution, the presentation of the state's case in court, or actions preparatory for these functions. Cf. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 278, 113 S.Ct. at 2618, 125 L.Ed.2d at 229 (prosecutor not entitled to absolute immunity for holding a press conference announcing indictment of plaintiff). Although [a]lmost any action by a prosecutor ... could be said to be in some way related to the ultimate decision whether to prosecute, absolute immunity is not that expansive. See Burns, 500 U.S. at 495, 111 S.Ct. at 1944, 114 L.Ed.2d at 564. Even if we were to assume that Phillips's actions were an integral part of a prosecutor's job or serve[d] a vital public function, in so acting Phillips was in no different position than any other administrator. Cf. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 278, 113 S.Ct. at 2619, 125 L.Ed.2d at 229. For this reason we are convinced the doctrine of qualified immunity, which applies in these sorts of situations regardless of the defendant's status as a prosecutor, is sufficient to protect the public interests at stake. Cf. id. We conclude Phillips has not met his burden in showing he was engaged in an activity intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process when writing the letters to Beck's supervisors, and therefore is not entitled to absolute immunity. See Burns, 500 U.S. at 486, 111 S.Ct. at 1939, 114 L.Ed.2d at 558.