Malley v. Briggs (1985)
- Docket
- 84-1586
- Decided
- 1985-01-01
Summary
Question: Is a police officer entitled to immunity when he causes an unlawful arrest by presenting a judge with an application for a warrant that does not present a probable cause? Conclusion: No. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that immunity can be judged on a standard of objective reasonableness. If a reasonable officer could not believe that a warrant has sufficient probable cause, the officer cannot be immune from prosecution. The Supreme Court also held that the officer applying for the warrant bears the burden of liability rather than the magistrate who signs it because, under the constraints of a docket, the magistrate may tend to defer to the officer’s judgment. In his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote that, based on the record for this case, a reasonable officer could have assumed that there was probable cause for an arrest warrant. He argued that the majority’s opinion did not grant enough weight to the fact that a judge signed off on the arrest warrant. Because a judge also agreed that there was enough evidence for an arrest, there is substantial evidence that the police officer acted reasonably and should have been granted immunity from damages. Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the partial concurrence and partial dissent.