In Borzilleri v. Mosby, 2016 WL 3057990, at *6 (D. Md. May 31, 2016), the District Court for Maryland address the immunities available to prosecutors Maryland stating: The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials—including state prosecutors, see Wiley v. Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994)—"from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). An official is shielded from liability when she shows either that her conduct did not violate a constitutional right or that the right at issue
…show more content…
Dammon, 848 F.2d at 443 (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967)).
It also requires the “balanc[ing] [of] two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, …show more content…
Prosecutorial functions such as initiating judicial proceedings, evaluating evidence, and preparing presentations before a grand jury or trial are entitled to absolute immunity. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 272-273. Additionally, it distinguished between the tasks performed by a prosecutor preparing for trial and those of a detective investigating a crime in order to establish probable cause to arrest a suspect. Id. at 273. The Court also concluded that a prosecutor may only receive qualified immunity where he or she offers legal advice to police about an unarrested suspect. Id. at 275. The prosecutor conducting investigative work is insufficient to receive absolute immunity and still only conveys what a police officer would be entitled to, qualified immunity. “That the prosecutors later called a grand jury to consider the evidence this work produced does not retroactively transform that work from the administrative into the prosecutorial.” Id. at 276. When the functions of prosecutors and detectives are the same, the immunity provided to them will also be the same.
Dammon, 848 F.2d at 443 (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967)).
It also requires the “balanc[ing] [of] two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, …show more content…
Prosecutorial functions such as initiating judicial proceedings, evaluating evidence, and preparing presentations before a grand jury or trial are entitled to absolute immunity. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 272-273. Additionally, it distinguished between the tasks performed by a prosecutor preparing for trial and those of a detective investigating a crime in order to establish probable cause to arrest a suspect. Id. at 273. The Court also concluded that a prosecutor may only receive qualified immunity where he or she offers legal advice to police about an unarrested suspect. Id. at 275. The prosecutor conducting investigative work is insufficient to receive absolute immunity and still only conveys what a police officer would be entitled to, qualified immunity. “That the prosecutors later called a grand jury to consider the evidence this work produced does not retroactively transform that work from the administrative into the prosecutorial.” Id. at 276. When the functions of prosecutors and detectives are the same, the immunity provided to them will also be the same.