stating that where prosecutor participated in videotaped interview of suspect, “if the videotapes were made to collect or corroborate evidence against Hill in order to get probable cause to arrest her, the act of making the tapes receives only qualified immunity”
How later courts described this case
- stating that where prosecutor participated in videotaped interview of suspect, “if the videotapes were made to collect or corroborate evidence against Hill in order to get probable cause to arrest her, the act of making the tapes receives only qualified immunity”
- holding that a prosecutor’s alleged acts of “conspiring to present falsified evidence to, and to withhold exculpatory evidence from, a grand jury” was “clearly protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity as all are part of his function as an advocate”
- noting that prosecutor's interview of witness who allegedly made inculpatory statements about accused would only be investigatory function if prosecutor lacked probable cause to arrest accused and results of interview contributed to his finding of probable cause
- recognizing as long settled prosecutors’ entitlement to absolute immunity for initiating prosecution, despite alleged reliance on falsified evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result.