Court Opinion

ID: 9794494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:07:03.233946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:55.201648
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion appears to be based upon the premise that judicial immunity is a defense even if the judge acts without authority or without jurisdiction, as long as the judge has any reasonable belief that he is acting within his authority or jurisdiction. I agree with such premise. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision that, as a matter of law, no reasonable judge could believe that he had the authority or jurisdiction to issue the warrant to arrest plaintiff.
The reason for judicial immunity is to allow judges to act freely and independently, particularly in difficult cases, without fear of having to pay civil damages in the event it is later determined that they acted without authority or jurisdiction. Wright v. White, 166 Or 136,143,110 P2d 948, 135 ALR 1 (1941). A judicial vacuum might exist if the insidious in*394fluence of liability for civil damages were present every time a judge was asked to act and his authority or jurisdiction was doubtful or questioned. On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason to protect a judge who acts arbitrarily, knowing he has no authority.
The rule that would best serve judicial independence would be that immunity would be granted in any instance in which the judge acted in the belief, however mistaken, that he was authorized to act. This, however, would require the application of a subjective standard,-—-what was the particular judge thinking? This is difficult; therefore, an objective standard is adopted,—could any reasonable judge have believed he had the authority to act? If no reasonable judge could, we assume that the particular judge knew he was acting without authority. Such an objective standard will protect all judges who have made an honest but erroneous decision, except those who are particularly foolish or incompetent.
The defendant is not a lawyer. In Oregon a substantial amount of judicial work must be done by non-lawyers. It is just as desirable to have these laymen judges operate free from the fear of liability for civil damages as it is for the legally trained judges. We have previously held that judicial immunity extends to judges -of courts of limited jurisdiction, in which nonlawyers frequently sit, as well as to courts of general jurisdiction. Shaw v. Moon, 117 Or 558, 562, 245 P 318, 45 ALR 600 (1926).
Inasmuch as it is independence of both lawyer and lay judges which we are trying -to preserve by the shield of judicial immunity, the test of whether the judge is reasonable in believing, erroneously, that he has the authority to act, should, in the case of a non-*395lawyer judge, become wbat a reasonable nonlawyer judge could believe.
Freedom from arrest or search, under the color of a warrant issued without judicial authority is a basic constitutional right. However, this court and others have held that this right must yield to the principle of judicial immunity. In Siverson v. Olson, 149 Or 323, 40 P2d 65 (1935), a search warrant was issued contrary to the constitutional requirement that it “particularly describe [ing] the place to be searched.” This court held the judge issuing the invalid warrant was immune from civil damages because he had made the decisoin to issue the warrant upon some colorable basis; that is, the insufficient description of the place to be searched which was contained in the affidavit.
Perhaps the majority decision is intended as a prophylactic measure,—to cause judges, particularly lay judges, to be very careful that all constitutional and statutory requirements have been met before issuing warrants. This is a laudable purpose, but I doubt one that should prevail over that granting immunity to judicial action taken under the reasonable belief that there is proper authority to act. This is especially true when there has been no previous decision by this court on the jurisdictional issue involved.
Shaw v. Moon, supra, is factually distinguishable from the present situation. According to the allegations in the complaint in Shaw v. Moon, the magistrate knew of no facts, by affidavit or otherwise, to justify the issuance of a warrant, but acted in conspiracy with the codefendant in order to deprive the plaintiff of his property. This is no decision that if the magistrate has the complete and perhaps sole knowledge *396of the facts which would authorize an arrest, he must nevertheless file a written, sworn complaint.
The majority states that the complaint must be in writing. I subscribe to this; however, that requirement was not clearly known prior to the majority opinion in this case. The statutes cited by the majority stating that the complaint shall be in writing do not indicate whether they set forth the exclusive procedure. These same statutes were in effect when this court stated in Ex Parte Jack Wessens, 89 Or 587, 589, 175 P 73 (1918), “It is not necessary under our statute that the accusation before a magistrate be reduced to writing.”
Neither the Oregon nor the Federal Constitution explicitly requires a writing. Other jurisdictions have held that a warrant can be issued upon oral testimony. Sparks v. United States, 90 F2d 61, 64 (6th Cir 1937); Clark v. Hampton, 163 Ky 698, 174 SW 490 (1915); People v. Clement, 72 Mich 116, 40 NW 190 (1888).
The majority also holds that there must be a sworn complaint. The principal purpose of an oath is to present facts in a trustworthy form in order that a magistrate can determine the question of probable cause. Giordenello v. United States, 357 US 480, 78 S Ct 1245, 2 L ed2d 1503, 1509 (1958). This is the command of the constitution and ordinarily is essential. However, in the unique situation present in this case, it seems incongruous, and a Dickens legalism, to require the defendant in his capacity as city recorder to make a sworn statement to himself as city judge. This formalism cannot add any element of trustworthiness.
Contrary to the reasoning of the majority, I find a close analogy in ORS 133.340, which authorizes a magistrate to command any person to arrest an offender who commits a crime in the presence of the *397magistrate. In such circumstances no written or sworn complaint is necessary, despite the constitutional requirement. One apparent reason for this exception to the constitutional requirement is that an oath would be superfluous because the magistrate knows the facts and does not need sworn information from someone else.
Frazier v. Moffatt, 108 Cal App2d 379, 239 P2d 123 (1952), illustrates the scope of this authority. The defendant Justice of Peace was eating lunch in a restaurant. According to him, another customer was yelling. The justice called police and ordered them to arrest the customer. The customer sued the justice for false imprisonment. The court held the justice was immune. He ordered an arrest without a warrant for a crime committed in his presence.
The constitutionality of ORS 133.340 may not be free from doubt, but the defendant judge and his legal advisor would be entirely reasonable in relying upon it by analogy①.
In this case the facts are that plaintiff was in violation of the city ordinance and, therefore, was subject to arrest. The jury could have found that defendant nonlawyer judge asked the city attorney how to proceed and was advised that inasmuch as the defendant personally knew the facts creating the right of arrest, it would not be necessary for the defendant or anyone else to file a written, sworn complaint. In support of the city attorney’s advice and the defendant’s action is the statement of this court that it is not necessary to reduce the complaint to writing, Ex Parte Jack Wessens, supra, and ORS 133.340, *398which under very similar circumstances authorizes a magistrate who by personal observation knows the facts authorizing arrest to order an arrest without a warrant. I would hold the defendant acted reasonably in believing he was authorized to act as he did and, therefore, he is immune from liability.

 Clark v. Hampton, supra (174 SW 490). Whether defendant consulted the city attorney before issuing the warrant is disputed.