Burns v. Reed

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Prosecutorial Immunity§ 1983absolute immunityqualified immunityprosecutorprobable-cause hearing

Facts

After police investigating the shooting of petitioner's sons came to suspect petitioner, they consulted respondent, the Chief Deputy Prosecutor, about whether they could hypnotize her and later whether they had probable cause to arrest her; he advised that they could proceed with hypnosis and that they probably had probable cause to arrest. The next day respondent and an officer appeared before a county judge at a probable-cause hearing to obtain a search warrant for petitioner's house and car. During that hearing, the officer, in response to respondent's questioning, testified that petitioner had confessed, but neither the officer nor respondent told the judge the statement had been obtained under hypnosis or that petitioner otherwise consistently denied the shootings. Petitioner was later charged, but after the trial court suppressed the hypnotically obtained statements, the prosecutor's office dropped the charges.

Issue

Is a state prosecutor absolutely immune from § 1983 damages liability for two different functions: participating in a probable-cause hearing in support of a search warrant, and giving legal advice to police during the investigative phase of a criminal case? More specifically, are both functions sufficiently tied to the judicial process to warrant absolute immunity?

Rule

Under § 1983, absolute prosecutorial immunity applies only to functions that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and that involve the prosecutor's role as an advocate for the State. A prosecutor bears the burden of justifying absolute immunity for the particular function at issue, and absent historical support and sufficient policy justification, actions such as giving legal advice to police during an investigation receive only qualified immunity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, detectives arrested Nolan Pierce for arson and asked Assistant Prosecutor Elena Park to appear that afternoon before a judge to obtain a warrant to search Nolan’s storage unit. At the hearing, Elena questioned a fire investigator in a way that omitted a lab report suggesting the accelerant could have come from a common cleaning product.

If Nolan later brings a § 1983 damages action against Elena based on her conduct at that hearing, which is the best answer on immunity?

Explanation. Under the functional approach, the question is what function the prosecutor performed. A prosecutor’s appearance in court to support an application for a search warrant and present evidence at that hearing is part of the prosecutor’s role as advocate for the State and is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. The majority held that absolute immunity applies even where the claim is based on misleading in-court presentation.