JOHNSON
v.
REX
Chief Justice Burger,
with whom Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor join,
dissenting.
In this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity from liability in a civil rights suit brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 based upon the prosecutor’s presence during questioning of the plaintiff. Absolute immunity was denied even though the prosecutor was present not as an investigator but as a counsel to advise on compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).
In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), this Court established an absolute immunity for prosecutors engaged in activities associated with the criminal process. This Court left open the extent to which investigative activities by prosecutors would also come within the umbrella of absolute immunity. But the principle of absolute immunity established in Imbler was based on the need to ensure sound decisionmaking by the prosecutor by protecting from fear of retaliatory suits for vigorous law enforcement. Here the prosecutor was acting as an officer of the court in ensuring compliance with the Miranda requirements, and I would grant the petition for certiorari in order to define the applicability of absolute immunity in this context; surely the prosecutor’s action was well within his function as a prosecutor and officer of the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988)…tigative officer rather than that of advocate,” id. at 430-31, 96 S.Ct. at 995, this court has subsequently held that “a prosecutor acting as an investigator has only qualified immunity.” Rex v. Teeples, 753 F. 2d 840, 843 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 967, 106 S.Ct. 332, 88 L.Ed.2d 316 (1985); see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 811 n. 16, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2734 n. 16, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Meade argues that Turpén and Leavitt were not entitled to absolute imunity because they were acting in an i…
-
Clark Davenport Snell v. Conley Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990)…F. 2d 1201, 1204 (9th Cir.1989). For we have held that a prosecutor who interrogates a suspect in the first instance is fulfilling an investigative, rather than a prosecutorial, function. Rex v. Teeples, 753 F. 2d 840, 844 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 967, 106 S.Ct. 332, 88 L.Ed.2d 316 (1985). Moreover, the Second Circuit in Robison, 821 F. 2d at 918—19, has held that an attorney who assists a police officer in investigating a child abuse complaint is merely part of the “preliminary investigative pro…
-
Gobel v. Maricopa Cnty., 867 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1989)…presentation or for police-like investigation), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023, 107 S.Ct. 1910, 95 L.Ed.2d 516 (1987); Rex v. Teeples, 753 F. 2d 840, 844 (10th Cir.) (prosecutor’s interrogation of a general suspect was police-type work), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 967, 106 S.Ct. 332, 88 L.Ed.2d 316 (1985); McSurely v. McClellan, 697 F. 2d 309, 320 (D.C.Cir.1982) (distinguishing decision to initiate prosecution from earlier, preliminary gathering of evidence that may blossom into a prosecution); Marrero v. City of…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976)