The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 7, 1997
Decision: Wednesday, December 10, 1997
Issues: Liability, Civil Rights Acts

Advocates

Timothy K. Ford (on behalf of the Respondent)
Norman Maleng (on behalf of the Petitioner)
Patricia A. Millett (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Lynne Kalina, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County, Washington, commenced criminal proceedings against Rodney Fletcher, in connection with a school robbery, by filing the appropriate documents. Included in those documents was a "Certification for Determination of Probable Cause." Based on the certification, the trial court found probable cause, and Fletcher was arrested. Kalina's certification contained two inaccurate factual statements: that Fletcher had "never been associated with the school in any manner and did not have permission to enter the school or to take any property," and that Fletcher had been identified asking for an appraisal of a computer stolen from the school. Subsequently, Fletcher sued Kalina for damages, alleging that she had violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The Federal District Court denied her motion for summary judgment, holding that she was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and that whether qualified immunity would apply was a question of fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity protect a prosecutor for making false statements of fact in an affidavit supporting an application for an arrest warrant against a damages remedy under 42 USC section 1983?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that section 1983 may create a damages remedy against a prosecutor for making false statements of fact in an affidavit supporting an application for an arrest warrant, since such conduct is not protected by the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity. Noting that the Fourth Amendment requires that arrest warrants be based "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," Justice Stevens wrote that," [e]ven when the person who makes the constitutionally required 'Oath or affirmation' is a lawyer, the only function that she performs in giving sworn testimony is that of a witness." Thus, section 1983 may, under some circumstances, provide a damages remedy against such a prosecutor.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Fletcher, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_792/>
(last visited ).