Supreme Court of the United States
Kalina v. Fletcher
December 10, 1997522 U.S. 118
Summary
The unanimous Court held that a prosecutor is not protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity when personally certifying factual statements under penalty of perjury to support an arrest warrant. In doing so, the prosecutor acts as a complaining witness rather than an advocate. Absolute immunity nevertheless protects preparing and filing the charging documents and exercising the professional judgment involved in initiating prosecution. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit without deciding whether qualified immunity ultimately applied. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred, accepting the result under existing precedent while explaining that the Court's functional approach produces immunity rules that diverge from the common law of 1871.
Holding
- Absolute immunity for personally certifying facts supporting an arrest warrant.. A prosecutor who personally certifies supporting factual statements under penalty of perjury performs the function of a complaining witness and is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for that conduct.
- Absolute immunity for preparing and filing the prosecution's charging and warrant documents.. Absolute immunity protects preparing and filing the information and motion for an arrest warrant, as well as preparing and filing the supporting certification apart from personally attesting to its factual truth.
Docket 96-792
Cited authorities
- Washington Criminal Rule 2.2(a)
- Local Criminal Rule 2.2
- Washington Criminal Rule 2.2(a)
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1433
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983