## Facts

- A deputy county prosecutor initiated burglary charges against Rodney Fletcher by filing (1) an unsworn information, (2) an unsworn motion for an arrest warrant, and (3) a “Certification for Determination of Probable Cause” executed by the prosecutor under penalty of perjury.
- The sworn Certification was used to satisfy the requirement that an arrest warrant be supported by an affidavit or sworn testimony establishing probable cause.
- The Certification included factual statements later alleged to be false, including assertions that Fletcher lacked any authorization to be at the school and that a store employee had identified him from a photo montage.
- A judge found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant based on the Certification; Fletcher was arrested and jailed for about a day.
- The prosecution later dismissed the charges.
- Fletcher sued the prosecutor for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the false sworn statements caused an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from § 1983 liability for personally swearing to factual statements in a probable-cause certification supporting an arrest warrant.
2. Whether such sworn statements are treated as advocative acts in initiating prosecution or as witness-like conduct subject at most to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment allowing the § 1983 claim to proceed.
- The prosecutor was absolutely immune for preparing and filing the unsworn information and unsworn motion for an arrest warrant, as those were advocative functions.
- The prosecutor was not absolutely immune for personally attesting under oath to the truth of facts in the probable-cause Certification.
- For the act of swearing to facts, the prosecutor functioned as a complaining witness and could claim, at most, qualified immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute prosecutorial immunity applies only to conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, such as initiating a prosecution and presenting the state’s case.
- Immunity analysis is functional: it depends on the nature of the act performed, not the official’s title.
- When a prosecutor personally provides sworn factual statements to establish probable cause for a warrant, the prosecutor performs a witness function and is not entitled to absolute immunity for that act.
- The availability of qualified immunity remains for good-faith errors when absolute immunity does not apply.

## Conclusion

A prosecutor’s traditional charging and filing decisions are protected by absolute immunity, but personally swearing to facts to establish probable cause for an arrest warrant is witness-like conduct and is not absolutely immune from § 1983 damages liability.


Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)