Kalina v. Fletcher

Background

A deputy county prosecutor filed three documents to start a burglary case and to obtain an arrest warrant. One document was a sworn “Certification for Determination of Probable Cause” in which the prosecutor personally vouched for facts. Two factual statements in that certification were inaccurate. The defendant was arrested, detained for a day, and the charges were later dismissed. The defendant sued under a federal law (Section 1983) that lets people sue state officials for constitutional violations, claiming the prosecutor’s false sworn statements caused an unreasonable seizure.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a prosecutor who signs a sworn statement to obtain an arrest warrant is covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity. The Court applied its previous decisions distinguishing a prosecutor’s role as an advocate from the role of a witness or investigator. It held that preparing and filing charging papers is normally protected, but personally making sworn factual statements is the role of a witness, not of an advocate. Because sworn testimony is a witness function, absolute immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim for false factual statements made to obtain a warrant.

Real world impact

The decision means people arrested after a prosecutor’s sworn factual misstatements can pursue damages claims. Prosecutors remain fully protected when performing traditional advocacy, but may face suit when they personally attest to facts. The opinion may lead local offices to change procedures so law-enforcement officers, not prosecutors, supply sworn affidavits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia concurred but warned the Court’s “functional” approach produces odd results compared with 1871 common-law rules, even though he agreed with the outcome.