Supreme Court of the United States

Malley v. Briggs

March 5, 1986475 U.S. 335

Summary

Justice White's majority opinion held that police officers applying for warrants receive qualified, not absolute, immunity from damages under § 1983. Immunity depends on objective reasonableness and is lost when the application is so deficient that no reasonably competent officer would have sought the warrant; judicial approval does not automatically establish immunity or break the causal chain. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded, expressly leaving the objective reasonableness of Malley's conduct unresolved. Justice Powell, joined by Justice Rehnquist, concurred in rejecting absolute immunity but dissented from the remand. He would give the issuing judge's probable-cause determination substantial evidentiary weight and hold Malley immune on this record.

Holding

  • Absolute immunity for an officer applying for a warrant.. An officer applying for a warrant receives qualified rather than absolute immunity from § 1983 damages liability.
  • The qualified-immunity standard and the effect of judicial authorization.. The objective-reasonableness standard used in United States v. Leon governs immunity. Immunity is lost when the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that belief in probable cause is unreasonable. A judge's approval does not automatically immunize the applicant; immunity remains when officers of reasonable competence could disagree. The Court did not decide whether Malley's application satisfied that standard.
  • Causation following judicial issuance of a warrant.. A judge's issuance of a warrant does not itself break the causal chain between the officer's application and an ensuing unconstitutional arrest.

Docket 84-1586

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF