## Facts

- Rhode Island State Police conducted a court-authorized wiretap of Paul Driscoll’s telephone in December 1980.
- Based on two intercepted calls referring to marijuana use at a party at James and Louisa Briggs’s home, Trooper Edward Malley prepared felony complaints charging the Briggses with marijuana possession.
- Malley submitted the complaints to a state judge along with arrest warrants and supporting affidavits.
- The judge signed the warrants, and the Briggses were arrested at their home on March 19, 1981, booked, and held for several hours before release.
- The prosecution ended when the grand jury did not return an indictment and the charges were dropped.
- The Briggses filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging their arrest violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because Malley sought warrants without probable cause.
- The district court directed a verdict for Malley; the First Circuit reversed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a police officer who applies for an arrest warrant is entitled to absolute immunity, or only qualified immunity, in a § 1983 damages action alleging lack of probable cause.
2. Whether a magistrate’s issuance of a warrant automatically makes the officer’s conduct objectively reasonable, or whether the officer can be liable when a reasonably well-trained officer would have known probable cause was not shown.

## Decision

- The Court held (7–2) that an officer applying for an arrest warrant is not entitled to absolute immunity; only qualified immunity applies.
- The Court adopted an objective standard: the officer may be liable if a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the affidavit failed to establish probable cause and the officer should not have applied for the warrant.
- The Court rejected the view that applying for a warrant is per se objectively reasonable or that a magistrate’s issuance automatically insulates the officer.
- The Court also rejected a categorical rule that the magistrate’s approval breaks causation as a matter of law.
- The judgment of the First Circuit was affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings under the qualified-immunity standard.

## Legal Principles

- Police officers who seek arrest warrants are protected by qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, in § 1983 suits.
- Qualified immunity turns on objective reasonableness: immunity is lost where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that belief in probable cause is unreasonable.
- A magistrate’s issuance of a warrant does not automatically immunize the officer; an officer remains responsible for submitting an affidavit that provides a constitutionally sufficient basis for probable cause.
- An officer’s unreasonable warrant application can be a proximate cause of an unconstitutional arrest despite judicial approval.

## Conclusion

The Court held that officers who apply for arrest warrants receive only qualified immunity and may be liable under § 1983 when their affidavits are so deficient that no reasonably well-trained officer would think probable cause existed, even if a judge signed the warrant.


Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)