Document: 475 U.S. 335 106 S.Ct. 1092 89 L.Ed.2d 271 Edward MALLEY and Rhode Island, Petitioners,v.James R. BRIGGS Louisa Briggs. No. 84-1586. Argued Nov. 13, 1985. Decided March 5, 1986. Syllabus On the basis of monitoring two telephone calls pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap an acquaintance respondents' daughter, petitioner Island state trooper (hereafter petitioner) prepared felony complaints charging respondents with possession marihuana. The were presented judge, accompanied by arrest warrants supporting affidavits. judge signed arrested, but charges subsequently dropped when grand jury did not return indictment. Respondents then brought damages action in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that applying for violated their rights Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. case was tried jury, court, while granting directed verdict on other grounds at close evidence, stated police officer who believes facts affidavit are true submits them neutral magistrate may be entitled immunity "objective reasonableness" standard Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 800, 102 2727, 73 396. Appeals reversed. Held: Petitioner is absolute only qualified from liability damages. Pp. 339-346. (a) Neither common law nor public policy affords any support immunity. Such cannot permitted petitioner's function seeking similar complaining witness, since witnesses absolutely immune law. As matter policy, provides ample protection all plainly incompetent or those knowingly violate Nor there tradition requesting warrant comparable afforded prosecutor In warrant, judicial process will whole benefit rule rather than standard, which gives room mistaken judgments, deter submitting probable cause make arrest, defines accorded whose request allegedly caused unconstitutional arrest. 340-345. (b) avoid act per se objectively reasonable where alleged his true, he rely officer's judgment issuing hence finding exists. question whether reasonably well-trained position would have known failed establish should applied warrant. If such case, application reasonable, because it created unnecessary danger unlawful 345-346. 748 F.2d 715 (C.A.1 1984), affirmed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. POWELL, filed concurring part dissenting part, REHNQUIST, joined, post, p. 346. Ann M. Sheadel, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Leonard Decof, Providence, R.I., respondents. Justice WHITE Court. 1 This presents degree defendant 1983 plaintiffs unconstitutionally arrested presenting complaint cause. 2 * December 1980, State Police conducting one Paul Driscoll, daughter. 20, intercepted call Driscoll unknown individual identified himself as "Dr. Shogun." logsheet summarizes follows: "General conversation re. party they went last night . caller says I can't believe token [sic ] front Jimmy Briggs—caller states passed Nancy sitting lap rolling her thing." App. 78. 3 Malley charge investigation Driscoll. After reviewing decided Shogun" incriminating, drug parlance "toking" means smoking marihuana "rolling thing" refers cigarette. also concluded another monitored same day showed discussed took place house. these calls, drew up "did unlawfully conspire uniform controlled substance having [marihuana] possession. ." Id., 74. These Judge February 1981, after Driscoll's phone had been terminated. Accompanying unsigned each respondent's affidavits describing interpretation them. 20 individuals charged result information gathered through wiretap. 4 home shortly before six o'clock morning 19, 1981. They taken station, booked, held several hours, arraigned, released. Local statewide newspapers published fact respondents, prominent members community, against 5 United States charging, inter alia, petitioner, moved granted verdict.1 Court's primary justification directing broke causal chain between filing court thereby 396 (1982). 6 First Circuit reversed, holding seeks unless has believing sufficient 1984). We certiorari order review Circuit's this context. 471 1124, 105 2654, 86 (1985). affirm. II 7 urges reversal grounds: first, context, damages; second, least case. reject both propositions address first issue. A. 8 Our general approach questions now well established. Although statute its face admits no immunities, we read "in harmony principles tort immunities defenses derogation them." Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 418, 96 984, 989, 47 128 (1976). initial inquiry official claiming can point common-law counterpart privilege asserts. Tower Glover, 467 914, 104 2820, 81 758 (1984). "an actions Civil Rights Act enacted 1871, next considers 1983's history purposes nonetheless counsel recognizing actions." 920, S.Ct., 2825. Thus, look guidance, do assume Congress intended incorporate every into unaltered form. 9 cases plain "[f]or executive officers general, represents norm." Harlow, supra, U.S., 807, 2732.2 Like federal officers, "seek exemption personal conduct must bear burden showing requires scope." Butz Economou, 438 478, 506, 98 2894, 2911, 57 895 (1978). B 10 previously sued false qualifiedly immune, Pierson Ray, 386 547, 557, 87 1213, 1219, 18 288 (1967), witness. difficulty submission generally accepted procured issuance could liable if made maliciously without cause.3 Given malice lack cause, complainant enjoyed thus petitioner. 11 argument considerations require defense evolved, At law, lacking, witness' turned issue malice, question.4 Under hand, allegation defeat acted manner. specifically designed "avoid excessive disruption government permit resolution many insubstantial claims summary judgment," sufficiently serves goal. Defendants if, objective basis, obvious competent issue; competence disagree issue, recognized. C 12 alternative ground immunity, draws analogy asks indict suspect. prosecutor, argues, exercise discretionary based evidence him, like best threat retaliatory lawsuits hangs over him. us giving prosecutor. Cf. 13 reemphasize our role interpret intent enacting freewheeling choice, guided interpreting Congress' tradition. Imbler, "[t]he was, is, suit malicious prosecution." 437, 998. find causes See n. 3, supra. While observation seem unresponsive argument, believe, important guide 1983. Since does provide going far 1871. 14 Even overlook inviting expand what untenable. interpreted give functions "intimately associated phase criminal process," 430, 995 (emphasis added), exaggerated esteem perform functions, certainly desire shield abuses office, lesser impair itself. Briscoe LaHue, 460 325, 334-335, 103 1108, 1115-1116, 75 (1983). intend disrespect observing action, vital administration justice, further removed proceedings Furthermore, analogy, some force, take account prosecutor's indictment step conviction. Exposing prosecutorial work interfere independent work, might come see later decisions terms effect potential liability. performance central actor process.5 15 frequently present. True, knows unreasonable actionable motivated reflect, upon establishes But reflection desirable, reduces likelihood premature. Premature requests waste resources; worst, lead premature arrests, injure innocent or, suppression motion, guilty. 16 incongruous test behavior hearing, Leon, 468 897, 3405, 82 677 (1984), exempting search scrutiny whatsoever action.6 exclusionary necessary purpose, obviously so considerable cost society whole, excludes probative guilt. remedy following imposes directly responsible request, side hampering prosecution. Also, greater hearing benefiting victim misconduct think most deserving remedy—the person done wrong, reason, bad reason. Owen City Independence, 445 622, 653, 100 1398, 1416, 63 673 (1980). 17 Accordingly, hold reasonableness context arrest.7 Only lacking indicia render belief existence unreasonable, 923, 3421, lost. III this, nevertheless shielded provided true. insists exists view odds out development concept Leon. "our good-faith confined ascertainable illegal despite magistrate's authorization." 922, 23, 3420, 23. analogous warrant.8 It ideal system harmless, approve it. ours system, possible magistrate, working docket pressures, fail should. minimize exercising professional judgment.9 19 affirmed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. 21 whom REHNQUIST joins, part. 22 agree much opinion, write separately emphasize substantial weight judge's determining personally appropriate here show decision reasonable. 23 outset, supplement supervising narcotics Superior appears logged recorded "Jimmy Briggs" "Luisa attended present possessed used A cigarette Mrs. referred people. fair inference log hosting earlier one. 24 conversation, partner seek possessing marihuana.1 Capelli, Judge.2 Capelli reviewed affidavits, entered stating: "TO ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER: 25 "Affidavit (and complaint) me oath, am satisfied therein set forth [sic], you hereby commanded forthwith bring him delay." 26 record disclose claim manner, 27 citizens never implicated violation laws. them, instituted damages.3 Capelli's immunized 28 attach 'constitutionally negligent,' recited constitute cause." 715, 721 denied purporting apply articulated today affirms. 29 immunity—objective reasonableness—properly applies. however, "government officials performing civil insofar clearly established statutory constitutional known." 818, 2738. Putting differently, "would defeated [only] 'knew within sphere responsibility [plaintiff].' " 815, 2737, quoting Wood Strickland, 420 308, 322, 95 992, 1001, 43 214 (1975). 30 today, correctly recognizes "qualified law." Ante, 341 added). "if, recognized." Ibid. 31 foregoing characterizations applicable raises disagree, major respects. First, deciding met remands trial Yet, recognizes, "no issue," ibid., my view, light logs duly authorized wiretap, believed 32 undisputed wiretaps initiated revealed being smoked, Briggs,4 party—at inferentially type—was home. need consider viewed often operate midst haste investigation," Ventresca, 380 102, 108, 85 741, 746, 684 (1965), differ. arguably activities. 347, 1. circumstances, 33 Second, perhaps importance, reasonableness, apparently little evidentiary officer.5 quotes 'our authorization.' 345 quotation foreclose consideration decision, seems denigrate relevance determination warrant.6 misconstrues respective roles of, relationship between, officer. asserted seizure, consistently cause.7 No reason none occurs me, why less 34 long recognized "reasonable division functions," Baker McCollan, 443 137, 145, 99 2689, 2695, 61 433 (1979), enforcement: gathering province police, weighing judging virtually exclusive magistrate. Lord Mansfield centuries ago: "It fit receiving left discretion ought judge; certain directions officer." Leach Three King's Messengers, How.St.Tr. 1027 (1765), quoted 407 297, 316, 92 2125, 2136, 752 (1972). 35 "should represent efforts gather wrongful acts collected justify [issuance warrant]." 2136. "the informed deliberate determinations magistrates preferred hurried officers." Lefkowitz, 285 452, 464, 52 420, 423, 76 L.Ed. 877 (1932). Judicial evaluation essential "checkpoint Government citizen." Steagald States, 451 204, 212, 101 1642, 1648, 68 38 (1981). Arkansas Sanders, 442 753, 759, 2586, 2590, 235 (1979): 36 "The requirement given reflects 'basic doctrine freedoms preserved separation powers among different branches levels Government.' 317 [92 2137]. By requiring conclusions concerning scope 'be drawn detached instead judged engaged competitive enterprise ferreting crime,' Johnson 333 10, [68 367, 369, 436] (1948), risk assertions authority."8 37 exists, encouraged submit officers.9 therefore expressly weight. more restrictive discourage fear litigation specter mistake prudent eyes attention Law enforcement ill-served terrorem restraint. sought divide impose inconsistent jurisprudence imply irrelevant suit. "judgment call" although conclusive, suits activity, 39 declining accord join dissent remand Respondents' named defendant. Eleventh Amendment grounds. contested propriety State. federal, state, officials, 'untenable draw distinction Constitution officials.' 30, 2738, (quoting 504, 2909, (1978)). See, e.g., Dinsman Wilkes, 53 (12 How.) 390, 402, 1036 (1852); Randall Henry, Stew. & P. 378 (Ala.1834); Bell Keepers, Kan. 64, 542 (1887); Finn Frink, 84 Me. 261, 851 (1892); W. Wait, Actions Defenses 352-356 (1878). warrants. Barker Stetson, Mass. 53, 54 (1856); Carey Sheets, 67 Ind. 375, 378-379 (1879). ("Whether proved jury"). organized bar's standards prosecutors lessen become misconduct. observed "a stands unique, deprive persons rights, amenability discipline association peers." 429, 994 (footnote omitted). absence comparably well-developed pervasive mechanism controlling weighs allowing concerns obtaining difference pressed breaks improvident clear, causation" rationale Monroe Pape, 365 167, 187, 473, 484, 492 (1961), background makes man natural consequences link ensuing link. us, decide, That resolved remand. Notwithstanding protestations, adopt way "requires even skilled magistrate." Brief Petitioners 33. sound presumption determination," goes saying mistakenly range requested liable. i.e., outside expected issues just mistake, unacceptable error indicating gross incompetence neglect duty. excuse own default pointing successfully additional connection investigation. how resulted indictments. Trooper Malley's attachment James Briggs stated: "Your affiant oath [sic] founded: "Persuant ordered wire intercept. "On 5:30 p.m. incoming received Reel 7, Side 1, Footage 30-48. unidentified male states, 'This Doctor Shotgun' [sic]. General reference night. Caller 'I Briggs.' Luisa talk about tonight. thing. date 5:56 p.m., 48-59. Male subject Scott Jaime's parents' [respondents'] referring home, Further, regard called Shotgun your affiant's experience, marijuana He Luisa. Where thing, she cigarette." 72-73. statement attached identical. $1 million compensatory punitive Briggs, simply "passed Louisa." subsequent mentioned "Louisa (Bungershort)," probably party. marihjuana Bungershort trial, seeing 40. words "magistrate" "judicial officer" interchangeably opinions. Shadwick Tampa, 345, 2119, 783 emphasis "been independent, neutral, judgment, legal training." North Russell, 427 328, 337, 2709, 2713, 49 534 observes "ours system," "it should." possibility "fail should," suggests here. "[i]f merely 'rubber stamp' unable mature closer supervision removal effective rule." 917-918, 18, 3418, 18. officers. 105-106, 744-745, "We begin analysis [the Amendment] mindful "In Jones 362 257, 270 [80 725, 735-736, 697 (1960)], strongly preference searches indicated doubtful marginal sustainable fall. 436 (1948) ], Chapman 610 [81 776, 828 (1961) condemning invaded premises intimated proper course followed available sustained." Generally, reliability officer's, immersed investigation, usually time deliberation familiarity training education concepts There will, course, instances evident ha[s] business warrant." Illinois Gates, 462 213, 264, 2317, 2346, 527 (1983) (WHITE, judgment). wholly abandoned manner condemned Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. New York, 319, 2319, 60 920 approval necessarily comport Constitution. departments obligation instill understanding found

Category: 1