# Appendix — Myers v. Morris > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2250%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1987 - **Citation:** 484 U.S. 828 ## Text SSpreinie VOUTT, U.S, FILED YUN 11 1987 No. RG-9N} 5 | JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. K IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1986 GREG MYERS, etc., et al., ee | a Petitioners, R. KATHLEEN-MORRIS, etc., Respondent, and DONALD BUCHAN, etc., et al., “i Petitioners, R. KATHLEEN MORRIS, etc., Respondent, and DANIEL J. MEGER, etc., et al., - Petitioners, R. KATHLEEN MORRIS, etc., : Respondent, and CHARLES LALLAK, etc., et al., ne Petitioners, R. KATHLEEN MORRIS, etc., Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit JOINT APPENDIX HANLEY, HERGOTT & HUNZIKER KURZMAN, GRANT, MANAHAN, Thomas J. Hunziker BLUTH AND BARKER 701 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 1400 Marc G. Kurzman Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Counsel of Record (612) 338-6990 Carol Grant Attorneys for Petitioners 2404 Stevens Avenue South Charles and Carol Lallak Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 (612) 871-9004 Counsel for Petitioners Greg Myers and Donald Buchan and DUNKLEY AND BENNETT, P.A. Michael D. Madigan 701 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 1400 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 (612) 339-1290 Attorneys for Petitioners Jeffrey and Jennifer Lallak ANTHONY L. NOTERMAN, ESQ. P.O. Box 158 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3844 and MURPHY, BLANCHAR & ELLIOTT Patrick H. Elliott 7407 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426-1675 (612) 546-4472 Attorney for Petitioners Meger 1987/EXECUT EAMILAW LINES DIV., 93 W Lille Canada Rd., St. Paul, MN 55117 / (612) 483-8793/800-326-6322 1 ALL THE PETITIONERS IN THE MYERS, ET AL V. MORRIS, ET AL CASE Greg Myers and Jane Myers, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Andy Myers, Amy Myers, and Brian Myers, minors. REESE ALL RESPONDENTS IN THE MYERS, ET AL VY. MORRIS, ET AL CASE Scott County and R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney; Scott County Human Services and Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services; Thomas Price, and Phipps-Yonas Price, P.A.; Paul Thomsen, Guardian Ad Litem; Doris Wilker, Social Worker; and other employees of Scott County Human Services whose names and titles are unknown; and Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff; Deputy Sheriffs Norm Pint, Patrick Morgan and Michael Busch and City County of Jordan Minnesota, and Alvin Erickson, Jordan Chief of Police. ALL THE PETITIONERS IN THE BUCHAN, ET AL V. MORRIS ET AL CASE Donald Buchan and Cindy Buchan, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Courtney B. Buchan, Melissa Ellen Buchan and William Donald Buchan, minors. xe Oe ALL THE RESPONDENTS IN THE BUCHAN, ET AL V. MORRIS, ET AL CASE ~— Scott County, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney; Scott County Human Services, Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services; Thomas Price, Phipps, Yonas and Price, P.A., Michael Shea, Shea and Associates, A-2 Diane Johnson, Guardian ad litem, John Manahan, Guardina ad litem, Doris Wilker, Social Worker; Mary Tafs, Social Worker; Judy Dean, Social Worker; Susan DeVries, Psychologist; other employees of Scott County whose names and titles are unknown; Douglas Tietz, Sheriff of Scott County. ALL THE PETITIONERS IN THE LALLACK, ET AL V. MORRIS, ET AL CASE Charles Lallack and Carol Lallack, husband and wife; and Jeffrey Lallack and Jennifer Lallack, minors, by Charles Lallack and Carol Lallack, their parents and natural guardians. ae eee ALL THE RESPONDENTS IN THE LALLACK, ET AL V. MORRIS, ET AL CASE Scott County; Scott County Board of Commissioners; Scott County Attorney’s Office; R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney; Scott County Sheriff’s Department; Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff; Michael M. Busch, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; Patrick Morgan, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; David Einertson, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; Norm Pint, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; Other employees of Scott County Sheriff’s Department whose names and titles are unknown; Scott County Human Services Department; Rachel Paff, Social Worker with Scott County Human Services Department; Other employees of Scott County Human Services Department whose names and titles are unknown; Larry Norring, Officer with Jordan Police Department, Thomas L. Price, and Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A. A-3 ALL THE PETITIONERS IN THE MEGER, ET AL V. MORRIS, ET AL CASE Daniel J. Meger and Wanda Lou Meger, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Brian Meger and Chad Meger, minors, 222445 ALL THE RESPONDENTS IN THE MEGER, ET AL. V. MORRIS, ET AL CASE Scott County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Minnesota; R. Kathleen Morris, individually and in her official capacity as attorney for Scott County; Scott County Board of Commis- sioners; Scott County Welfare Department and Margaret Sub- by, it’s Director of Human Services; Scott County Sheriff’s Department and it’s Deputies, Patrick Morgan and Michael Busch; Doris Wilker, Social Worker, Scott County Welfare Department; Joel Kaufmann, psychologist, Scott County Welfare Department; Jane McNaught, and Center for Child and Family Therapy; B. A. Bershow, M.D., and Burnsville Family Physicians, P.A.; John Doe and Mary Doe and other employees of Scott County whose names and titles are unknown, B-1 IN THE United States Bistrict Court DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION GREG MYERS and JANE MYERS, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Andy Myers, Amy Myers and Brian Myers, minors, Plaintiffs, Civil No. 4-84-1066 vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SCOTT COUNTY and R. KATHLEEN MORRIS, SCOTT COUNTY ATTORNEY, SCOTT COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES, and PEG SUBBY, ITS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN SERVICES, THOMAS PRICE, and PHIPPS-YONAS & PRICE, P.A., PAUL THOMSEN, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, DORIS WILKER, SOCIAL WORKER, AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF SCOTT COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES WHOSE NAMES AND TITLES ARE UNKNOWN, AND DOUGLAS TIETZ, SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants. Plaintiffs, for their Complaint herein, allege: JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT (1) This action arises under, and jurisdiction is based upon U.S. Code Title 42, Section 1983 and Section 1988. The plain- tiffs are persons within the jurisdiction of the United States who B-2 have been depnived of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The defendanits having injured the plaintiffs causing them damages in exicess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10, 000.00), ex- clusive of interest and costs. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS (2) Plaintiffs Greg and Jane Myers are residents of Jordan, Scott County, Minnesota. Plaintiffs are husband and wife, mar- ried on 4/28/78. They have three minor children, Andy, born 6/16/72, age 14; Amy, born 4/8/79, age 5; and Brian, born 4/25/82, age 2. (3) Defendant R. Kathleen Morris is the County Attorney and chief legal officer and agent of Scott County. (4) Defendant Douglas Tietz is the County Sheriff and agent of Scott County. Defendant Sheriff Tietz failed to properly supervise deputy sheriffs and negligently allowed them to act at the direction of the County Attorney, defendant Morris, who was acting as an investigator and initiator of charges against Plaintiffs Greg and Jane Myers. Defendant Sheriff Tietz was grossly negligent in failing to properly supervise deputy sheriffs and allowing them to work at the direction of defendant Morris in depriving the plaintiffs and their minor children herein of their statutory and constitutional rights. (5) Defendant Doris Wilker is a social worker employed by Scott County Human Services. In addition to the other actions alleged below she acted as the primary questioner and inter- rogator of the minor plaintiffs and in this capacity subjected them to emotional trauma and psychological abuse as a result of coercive and cruel questioning techniques and also as a result of her failure to attempt to corroborate statements by the Myers’ children which exculpated their parents. (6) Defendant Paul Thomsen is the court appointed guardian ad litem for the Myers’ children. Defendant Thomsen in addi- tion to the other acts alleged herein, also engaged in a pattern of activity which was coercive and abusive to the minors placed under his direction by the Court in violation of his legal duties, in that he also interrogated the Myers’ children in an attempt to B-3 elicit additional accusatory reponses from them as well as per- mitting defendant Morris and defendant Wilker to question and interrogate the children under circumstances where it was ap- parent that their emotional and psychological well-being was threatened. Defendant Thomsen permitted and participated in the isolation and confinement of the Myers’ children in an at- tempt to coerce them into making responses which would be favorable for the State’s case against their parents. (7) Defendant Thomas Price practices in an association known as Phipps-Yonas & Price. In addition to the other ac- tions alleged herein, defendant Price served defendant R. Kathleen Morris by providing her with psychological evalua- tions of the Myers’ children. In addition to providing these evaluations, defendant Price interrogated the Myers’ children and manipulated them psychologically and transmitted the con- firmation of allegations to defendant R. Kathleen Morris in negligent disregard of the truth of those confirmations. Further- more, defendant Price held himself out as a ‘‘psychotherapist’’ but was really practicing psychology, which requires a licence, when in fact Mr. Price held no licensure or certification by the State, a misdemeanor within the ambit of M.S.A. § 148.97. (8.1) On or about February 6, 1984, the defendants Scott County, Scott County Welfare Department, Peg Subby, and R. Kathleen Morris caused, through their agents and under color of law, the forcible removal of the plaintiffs’ three minor children from the plaintiffs’ home. (8.2) Defendants conspired to deprive the minor children herein of their rights under M.S.A § 13.40, subd. 2, the so- called ‘‘Tennessen warning,’’ which is binding upon all social workers but not police. (8.31) Defendants conspired to violate M.S.A. § 626.556, specifically including but not limited to subd. 10. (8.32) Defendants conspired to violate M.S.A. § 260.165. (8.4) Defendants conspired to violate Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Regulations set forth in 12 M.C.A.R. § 2.207, insofar as there was no attempt to place the children voluntarily or seek alternatives to ensure the safety of the children, there was no attempt to contact the family, nor were other legally necessary prerequisite steps taken prior to petitioning a court B-4 for authorization to intervene. (9) Defendant Morris then filed a criminal complaint against plaintiff Greg Myers in Scott County District Court, alleging numerous instances and counts of sexual abuse committed by Greg Myers upon his own children and upon other minor children. (10) The defendants deliberately refused to disclose the loca- tion of the three children to plaintiff Greg Myers. (11) Jane Myers appeared in Scott County Family Court for the purpose of re-establishing contact between her husband and his three children. (12) After this appearance by her, defendants deprived Jane Myers of contact with or knowledge about her children. (13) Also after this Court appearance by plaintiff Jane Myers, defendant Morris filed a criminal Complaint against her in Scott County District Court also alleging numerous instances and counts of sexual abuse committed by her upon her own children as well as other minor children. (14) Defendant R. Kathleen Morris has, in the prosecution of criminal charges against the plaintiff, violated the laws and Constitution of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the Canons of Ethics governing the practice of law in her pro- secution of the plaintiffs. (15) Specifically, R. Kathleen Morris has: (15.1) Destroyed material evidence in the form of audio and video tapes of interviews with alleged child victims, rather than disclose this potentially exculpatory material to defense counsel; (15.2) Hid, covered up and withheld exculpatory evidence gathered at the State’s direction by police and investigatory per- sonnel; (15.3) Threatened child witnesses who were potentially State’s witnesses with jail, other punitive incarceration, and with threats that they would not see their parents again unless those witnesses gave testimony incriminating the accused adults; and (15.4) Interrogated child witnesses using severely coercive methods which resulted in psychological disorders and traumas to these witnesses; (15.5) Intimidated and accused child witnesses of lying if they B-5 did not deliver incriminating testimony and lied to child witnesses by telling them that their siblings had already made in- criminating staements about their parents; (15.6) Encouraged child witnesses through role playing to col- lectively vent accusations; (15.7) Offered bribes, in an effort to obtain prosecution witnesses; (15.8) Suborned perjury of major prosecution witness in ex- change for plea bargaining concessions; (15.9) Entered into an illegal plea bargain which was con- tingent upon an after the fact evaluation of the usefulness of the convict’s testimony to the prosecution; (15.10) Misrepresented the nature of the plea bargain entered into with convicted child molester, James Rud to victims of his acts; (15.11) Misrepresented the interrogation of child witnesses by a social worker as interrogation by a psychotherapist when in fact that person was unlicenced as a psychotherapist; and (15.12) Represented to the trial court and defense counsel that Family Court appointees, foster parents, guardians ad litem, and social workers were not engaged in collecting information for the prosecution. (16) These actions by defendant R. Kathleen Morris alleged in this Complaint she took while acting in her capacity and office as an elected official and agent for Scott County. These actions went beyond her official capacity as prosecutor insofar as she acted as an investigator. (17) All of the actions alleged herein represent the official deliberate policy or custom of the office of Scott County At- torney and the Scott County Board. (18) The aforesaid arrests, confinement, separation of the family and interference with the family relation were made under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Minnesota and deprived plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities under the United States Constitution and laws, specifically including but not limited to United States Constitution Article XIV, Section 1, in that plain- tiffs have been deprived of their liberty without due process of law; United States Constitution Article IV, in that plaintiffs B-6 have been denied their right to be secure in their persons and home and from having their persons seized without warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation; and United States Code, Title 42, Section 1983, in that plaintiffs have been deprived of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and laws by defen- dants acting upon color of Minnesota statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usage, and the freedom of religion guaranteed plaintiffs under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (19) The aforesaid actions by defendants were acts in fur- therance of a conspiracy. Defendants and specifically R. Kathleen Morris and her office were engaged in a publicly cam- paign against child abuse and incest. Part of this campaign in- volved the invention by defendant Morris and others of a ‘‘sex ring’’ in Jordan, Minnesota. Defendants attempted to legitimize this invented ‘‘sex ring’’ by producing a large number of arrests and prosecutions in Jordan for sexual abuse of children. Defen- dants thus in furtherance of this conspiracy recklessly sought out plaintiffs as candidates for prosecution. These arrests were thus made without making any adequate substantiated inquiries regarding the welfare of the plaintiffs’ minor children and without probable cause and in willful disregard of plaintiffs’ rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Consititution and the law and Constitution of the State of Minnesota. (20) The defendants by failing to make reasonable inquiries before removing the Myers’ children from the family home and by initiating a criminal prosecution against Greg Myers and Jane Myers without probable cause, in addition to being guilty of conspiracy as described in the preceding paragraph, were grossly negligent. As a result of this gross negligence, and of the other acts and omissions of the other defendants herein as previously alleged, plaintiffs have been greatly damaged, in that they have suffered great mental duress and anguish, have been wrongfully arrested and deprived of their liberty, wrongfully confined, have been caused to suffer damage to their family relations, have_suffered alienation of affection between parent and child, have suffered injury to their reputations and B-7 have been greatly damaged in their enjoyment of their home and community and currently live in a state of fear of reprisal and other unwarranted governmental action by all of the aforesaid defendants and other officials of Scott County. (21) As a further result of their gross negligence the minor plaintiffs Andy, Amy, and Brian Myers have been caused to suffer emotional and psychological harm which has and will continue to damage their maturation, growth and development. (22) All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments were committed with a willful indifference to the rights of plaintiffs so as to subject defendant and each of them to punitive damages pursuant to the provisions of the statutes and common law of the United States of America. (23) Because of the matters set forth in all of the preceding paragraphs hereof, plaintiffs have been forced to retain an at- torney to seek vindication of their rights and to assure them of the further peaceful enjoyment of their rights as residents of their community and the State of Minnesota and the United States. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment of defendants and each of them, as follows: (1) For an award of compensatory damamges in the amount of Twenty Four Million Dollars ($24,000,000.00). (2) For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter defendants and other similarly situated, from committing such acts as are alleged in this complaint in the future, in an amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00). (3) For plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees in connection with this action. (4) For temporary and permanent injunction enjoining defen- dants and each of them, and all other officials of Scott County from taking any actions in reprisal for plaintiffs’ having in- stituted this action or for any other reason. (5) For such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable. /S/Marc G. Kurzman Marc G. Kurzman Carol Grant KURZMAN, MANAHAN & PARTRIDGE 601 Butler Square 100 North Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 333-4403 Attorney for Plaintiffs. Dated: C-1 IN THE United States istrict Court DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION Donald Buchan and Cindy Buchan, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Courtney Beth Buchan, — Melissa Ellen Buchan, and William Donald Buchan, minors, Plaintiffs, Civil No. VS. COMPLAINT Scott County and R. Kathleen Morris, Scott Coun- ty Attorney, Scott County Human Services, and Peg Subby, its director of Human Services, Thomas Price, and Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A., Michael Shea, and Shea & Associates, P.A., Diane Johnson, guardian ad litem, John Manahan, guardian ad litem, Doris Wilker, social worker, Mary Tafs, social worker, Judy Dean, social worker, Susan DeVries psychologist, and other employees of Scott County Human Services whose names and titles are unknown, and Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, Defendants. Plaintiffs, for their Complaint herein, allege: JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT (1) This action arises under, and jurisdiction is based upon U.S. Code Title 42, Section 1983 and Section 1988. The plain- tiffs are persons within the jurisdiction of the United States who have been deprived of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The defendants having injured the plaintiffs causing them damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), ex- clusive of interest and costs. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS (2) Plaintiffs Donald and Cindy Buchan are residents of Jor- dan, Scott County, Minnesota. Plaintiffs are husband and wife, married on April 1, 1978. They have three minor children, Melissa Ellen, born August 2, 1979, age 5; Courtney Beth, born August 25, 1981, age 3; and William Donald, born December 4, 1982, age 1. (3) Defendant R. Kathleen Morris is the County Attorney and chief legal officer and agent of Scott County. (4) Defendant Douglas Tietz is the County Sheriff and agent of Scott County. Defendant Sheriff Tietz failed to properly supervise deputy sheriffs and negligently allowed them to act at the direction of the County Attorney, defendant Morris, who was acting as an investigator and initiator of charges against plaintiffs Donald and Cindy Buchan. Defendant Sheriff Tietz was grossly negligent in failing to properly supervise deputy sheriffs and allowing them to work at the direction of defendant C-3 Morris in depriving the plaintiffs and their minor children herein of their statutory and constitutional rights. (5) Defendants Doris Wilker, Mary Tafs and Judy Dean are social workers employed by Scott County Human Services. In addition to the other actions alleged below they acted as the primary questioners and interrogators of the minor plaintiffs and in this capacity subjected them to coercive and cruel ques- tioning techniques and also as a result of their failure to attempt to corroborate statements by the Buchans’ children which ex- culpated their parents. (6) Defendants Diane Johnson and John Manahan are the court appointed guardians ad litem for the Buchans’ children. Defendants Johnson and Manahan, in addition to the other acts alleged herein, also engaged in a pattern of activity which was coercive and abusive to the minors placed under their direction by the Court in violation of their legal duties, in that they also interrogated the Buchans’ children in an attempt to elicit addi- tional accusatory responses from them as well as permitting defendant Morris and defendants Wilker, Tafs and Dean to question and interrogate the children under circumstances where it was apparent that their emotional and psychological well-being was threatened. Defendants Johnson and Manahan permitted and participated in the isolation and confinement of the Buchans’ children in an attempt to coerce them into making responses which would be favorable for the State’s case against their parents. (7) Defendant Thomas Price practices in an association known as Phipps-Yonas & Price. In addition to the other ac- tions alleged herein, defendant Price served defendant R. Kathleen Morris by providing her with psychological evalua- tions of the Buchans’ children. In addition to providing these evaluations, defendant Price interrogated the Buchans’ children and manipulated them psychologically and transmitted the con- firmation of allegations to defendant R. Kathleen Morris in negligent disregard of the truth of these confirmations. Further- more, defendant Price held himself out as a ‘‘psychotherapist’’ but was really practicing psychology, which requires a license, when in fact Mr. Price held no licensure of certification by the State, a misdemeanor within the ambit of M.S.A. § 148.97. C-4 (8) Defendant Susan DeVries is a licensed psychologist who performed psychological consulting services for Scott County on a contract basis and as such, was acting under color of State law. (9) Defendant Michael Shea is a licensed psychologist who practices with Shea & Associates, P.A., providing consulting services for Scott County on a contract basis and, as such, was acting under color of State law. (8.1) On or about June 4, 1984, the defendants Scott County, Scott County Welfare Department, Peg Subby, Doris Wilker, Mary Tafs, Judy Dean, Thomas Price, Susan DeVries, Michael Shea, Douglas Tietz and R. Kathleen Morris caused, through their agents and under color of law, the forcible removal of the plaintiffs’ three minor children from the plaintiffs’ home. (8.2) Defendants conspired to deprive the minor children herein of their rights under M.S.A. § 13.40, subd. 2, the so- called ‘“Tennessen warning,’’ which is binding upon all social workers but not police. (8.31) Defendants further conspired to violate M.S.A. § 626.556, specifically including but not limited to subd. 10. (8.32) Defendants further conspired to violate M.S.A. § 260.165. (8.4) Defendants conspired to violate Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Regulations set forth in 12 M.C.A.R. § 2.207, insofar as there was no attempt to place the children voluntarily or seek alternatives to ensure the safety of the children, there was no attempt to contact the family, nor were other legally necessary prerequisite steps taken prior to petitioning a court for authorization to intervene. (9) Defendant Morris then filed a criminal complaint against plaintiffs Donald Buchan and Cindy Buchan in Scott County District Court, alleging numerous instances and counts of sex- ual abuse committed by them upon their own children and upon other minor children. (10) Defendant R. Kathleen Morris has, in the prosecution of criminal charges against the plaintiff, violated the laws and Constitution of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the Canons of Ethics governing the practice of law in her pro- secution of the plaintiffs. C-5 (15) Specifically, R. Kathleen Morris has: (15.1) Destroyed material evidence in the form of audio and video tapes of interviews with alleged child victims, rather than disclose this potentially exculpatory material to defense counsel; (15.2) Hid, covered up and withheld exculpatory evidence gathered at the State’s direction by police and investigatory personnel; (15.3) Threatened child witnesses who were potentially State’s witnesses with jail, other punitive incarceration, and with threats that they would not see their parents again unless those witnesses gave testimony incriminating the accused adults; and (15.4) Interrogated child witnesses using severely coercive methods which resulted in psychological disorders and traumas to these witnesses; (15.5) Intimidated and accused child witnesses of lying if they did not deliver incriminating testimony and lied to child witnesses by telling them that their siblings had already made in- criminating statements about their parents; (15.6) Encouraged child witnesses through role playing to col- lectively vent accusations; (15.7) Offered bribes, in an effort to obtain prosecution witnesses; (15.8) Suborned perjury of a major prosecution witness in ex- change for plea bargaining concessions; (15.9) Entered into an illegal plea bargain which was con- tingent upon an after the fact evaluation of the usefulness of the convict’s testimony to the prosecution; (15.10) Misrepresented the nature of the plea bargain entered into with convicted child molester, James Rud to victims of his acts; (15.11) Misrepresented the interrogation of child witnesses by a social worker as interrogation by a psychotherapist when in fact that person was unlicensed as a psychotherapist; and (15.12) Represented to the trial court and defense counsel that Family Court appointees, foster parents, guardians ad litem, and social workers were not engaged in collecting information for the prosecution. (16) These actions by defendant R. Kathleen Morris alleged in C-6 this Complaint she took while acting in her capacity and office as an elected official and agent for Scott County. These actions went beyond her official capacity as prosecutor insofar as she acted as an investigator. (17) All of the actions alleged herein represent the official deliberate policy or custom of the office of Scott County At- torney and the Scott County Board. (18) The aforesaid arrests, confinement, separation of the family and interference with the family relation were made under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Minnesota and deprived plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities under the United States Constitution and laws, specifically including but not limited to United States Constitution Article XIV, Section 1, in that plain- tiffs have been deprived of their liberty without due process of law; United States Constitution Article IV, in that plaintiffs have been denied their right to be secure in their persons and home and from having their persons seized without warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation; and United States Code, Title 42, Section 1983, in that plaintiffs have been deprived of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and laws by defen- dants acting upon color of Minnesota statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usage. (19) The aforesaid actions by defendants were acts in fur- therance of a conspiracy. Defendants and specifically R. Kathleen Morris and her office were engaged in a publicity cam- paign against child abuse and incest. Part of this campaign in- volved the invention by defendant Morris and others of a ‘‘sex ring’’ in Jordan, Minnesota. Defendants attempted to legitimize this invented ‘‘sex ring’’ by producing a large number of arrests and prosecutions in Jordan for sexual abuse of children. Defen- dants thus in furtherance of this conspiracy recklessly sought out plaintiffs as candidates for prosecution. These arrests were thus made without making any adequate substantiated inquiries regarding the welfare of the plaintiffs’ minor children and without probable cause and in willful disregard of plaintiffs’ rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and the law and Constitution of the State of C-7 Minnesota. (20) The defendants by failing to make reasonable inquiries before removing the Buchans’ children from the family home and by initiating a criminal prosecution against Donald Buchan and Cindy Buchan without probable cause, in addition to being guilty of conspiracy as described in the preceding paragraph, were grossly negligent. As a result of this gross negligence, and of the other acts and omissions of the other defendants herein as previously alleged, plaintiffs have been greatly damaged, in that they have suffered great mental duress and anguish, have been wrongfully arrested and deprived of their liberty, wrongfully confined, have been caused to suffer damage to their family relations, have suffered alienation of affection between parent and child, have suffered injury to their reputations and have been greatly damaged in their enjoyment of their home and community and currently live in a state of fear of reprisal and other unwarranted governmental action by all of the aforesaid defendants and other officials of Scott County. (21) As a further result of their gross negligence the minor plaintiffs Courtney, Melissa and William Buchan have been caused to suffer emotional and psychological harm which has and will continue to damage their maturation, growth and development. (22) All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments were committed with a willful indifference to the rights of plaintiffs so as to subject defendants and each of them to punitive damages pursuant to the provisions of the statutes and common law of the United States of America. (23) Because of the matters set forth in all of the preceding paragraphs hereof, plaintiffs have been forced to retain an at- torney to seek vindications of their rights and to assure them of the further peaceful enjoyment of their rights as residents of their community and the State of Minnesota and the United Sates. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment of defendants and each of them, as follows: (1) For an award of compensatory damages in the amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00). (2) For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter C-8 defendants amd other similarly situated, from committing such acts as are alleged in this complaint in the future, in an amount of Ten Milliom Dollars ($10,000,000.00) (3) For plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees in connection with this action. (4) For temporary and permanent injunction enjoining defen- dants and eaclh of them, and all other officials of Scott County from taking any actions in reprisal for plaintiffs’ having in- stituted this aiction or for any other reason. (5) For such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable. /S/Marc G. Kurzman Marc G. Kurzman Carol Grant KURSMAN, MANAHAN & PARTRIDGE 601 Butler Square 100 North Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 333-4403 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: 11/19/84 « Ciey D-1 IN THE United States Bistrict Court DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION Civil File No. Charles Lallak and Carol Lallak, husband and wife; and Jeffrey Lallak and Jen- nifer Lallak, minors, by Charles Lailak and Carol Lallak, their parents and natural guardians, Plaintiffs, VS. Scott County; Scott County Board of Commissioners; Scott County Attorney’s Of- fice; R. Kathleen Morris, COMPLAINT Scott County Attorney; Scott County Sheriff’s Department; Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff; Michael M. Bush, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; JURY TRIAL Patrick Morgan, Scott Coun- DEMANDED ty Deputy Sheriff; David Einertson, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; Norman Pint, Scott County Deputy D-2 Sheriff; Other employees of Scott County Sheriff’s Department whose names and titles are unknown; Scott County Human Services Department; Rachel Paff, Social Worker with Scott County Human Services Department; Other employees of Scott County Human Ser- vices Department whose names and titles are unknown; City of Jordan; Jordan City Council; Gail Anderson, former mayor of Jordan; Donald Tillman, Mayor of Jordan; Jordan Police Department; Alvin Erickson, Jordan Police Chief; Larry Norling, Officer with Jordan Police Depart- ment; Other employees of Jordan Police Department whose names and titles are unknown; Thomas L. Price, and Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A.., Defendants. Plaintiffs, as for their Complaint, state and allege as follows: 1. At all times material hereto Plaintiffs were residents of Scott County, Minnesota. 2. Upon information and belief, all of the Defendants named herein are residents of Scott County, Minnesota. 3. Jurisdiction in this case is based upon Section 1331 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Federal question jurisdiction is based upon Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. As further enumerated below, Plaintiffs are persons within the D-3 jurisdiction of the United States District Courts who have been deprived of their rights, privileges and immunities secured under the laws and Constitution of the United States. 4. Plaintiffs Charles Lallak and Carol Lallak are husband and wife. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Lallak and Jennifer Lallak are their minor children, born respectively August 27, 1969 (15 years old) and October 26, 1970 (14 years old). 5. Defendant Scott County is, and at all times material hereto was, an entity duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Minnesota law. 6. Defendant Board of Commissioners is, and at all times material hereto was, a governmental body of Scott County. 7. Defendants County Attorney’s office, Sheriff’s Depart- ment and Human Services Department are, and at all times material hereto were, agencies of Scott County. 8. Defendant R. Kathleen Morris is, and at all times material hereto was, the County Attorney and chief legal officer and agent of Scott County. 9. Defendant Douglas Tietz is, and at all times material hereto was, the Sheriff and agent of Scott County. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendants Michael M. Bush, Patrick Morgan, David Einertson and Norman Pint are, and at all times material hereto were, Deputy Sheriffs and agents of Scott County. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rachel Paff is, and at all times material hereto was, a Social Worker and agent of Scott County. 12. Defendant City of Jordan is, and at all times material hereto was, a municipal corporation organized under and pur- suant to Minnesota Statute § 414.01, ef seq. 13. Defendant City Council is, and at all times material hereto was, a governing body of the City of Jordan. 14. Defendant Police Department is, and at all times material hereto was, an agency of the City of Jordan. 15. Defendant Gail Anderson was the Mayor of the City of Jordan until the summer of 1984. 16. Defendant Donald Tillman is the Mayor for the City of Jordan, having commenced his term of office in the summer of 1984. D-4 17. Defendant Alvin Erickson is, and at all times material hereto was, the Chief Police Officer and agent of the City of Jordan. 18. Defendant Larry Norling is, and at all times material hereto was, a police officer and agent of the City of Jordan. 19. Defendant Thomas L. Price practices in an association known as Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A. At all times material hereto, Defendant Price held himself out as a ‘*psychotherapist’’ but was really practicing psychology, which requires a license, when in fact Defendant Price heid no license or certification by the State. Furthermore, Defendant Price assisted Defendant Morris and the other Defendants by pro- viding her with psychological evaluation of various children allegedly abused by the Lallaks. 20. Beginning in February of 1984, Defendants and their agents wrongfully, unlawfully and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, began interrogating Plaintiffs about alleged child sex abuse and incest. Said interrogations occurred repeatedly until May 23, 1984. 21. On or about May 23, 1984, Defendants, and specifically R. Kathleen Morris, wrongfully, unlawfully and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights filed a criminal complaint alleging six counts of criminal sexual conduct. Based upon said criminal complaint, Defendants wrongfully, unlawfully and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights imprisoned Charles and Carol Lallak and, furthermore, forebode the Lallak parents from contacting the Lallak children. 22. In the investigation and prosecution of the criminal charges against the Lallaks, Defendants, and specifically R. Kathleen Morris acted in a reckless and grossly negligent manner. 23. In addition to actions taken in the capacity of chief pro- secutor for and agent of Scott County, Defendant R. Kathleen Morris also took actions which exceeded her official capacity and further acted in the capacity of administrator and investigator. 24. In addition to actions taken in their capacity as agents for Scott County, Defendants Douglas Tietz, Michael M. Bush, Patrick Morgan, David Einertson and Norman Pint exceeded D-5 the scope of their agency; all of said actions were wrongful, unlawful and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 25. In addition to actions taken in their capacity as agents for the City of Jordan, Defendants: Alvin Erickson and Larry Norling exceeded the scope of their agency; all of said actions were wrongful, unlawful and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ con- situtional rights. 26. In pertinent part, all of the actions alleged herein repre- sent the official deliberate policy, or were taken pursuant to the guidelines of, Scott County, the Scott County Board of Com- missioners, the Scott County Sheriff’s Department, the Scott County Welfare Department, the City of Jordan, Jordan City Council and the Jordan Police Department. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 27. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 26 herein. 28. The aforesaid arrests, confinement, separation of the family and interference with the family relation were made under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Minnesota and deprived Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities under the United States Constitution and laws. Without limitation, Defendants’ con- duct hus been violative of Plaintiffs’ rights as enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. 29. The aforesaid actions by Defendants were acts in fur- therance of a conspiracy. Defendants, and specifically R. Kathleen Morris and her office, were engaged in a publicity campaign against child abuse and incest. Part of this campaign involved the invention by Defendant Morris and others of a **sex ring’’ in Jordan, Minnesota. Defendants attempted to legitimize this invented ‘‘sex ring’’ by producing a large number of arrests and prosecutions in Jordan for sexual abuse of children. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants reck- lessly sought out the Lallaks as candidates for prosecution. These arrests were thus made without making any adequate D-6 substantiated inquiries regarding the welfare of the Plaintiffs’ minor children and without probable cause and in willful disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, privileges and immunitites secured by the United States constitution and the law and Con- stitution of the State of Minnesota. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 31. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted wiilful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 32. Realleges and-incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 31 herein. 33. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted a malicious prosecution of the Lallaks. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 35. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 36. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 D-7 through 35 herein. 37. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted an abuse of process as to the Lallaks. ; 38. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 39. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 40. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 39 herein. 41. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted a false imprisonment of the Lallaks. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. - 43. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 44. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs | through 43 herein. D-8 45. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted libel as to the Lallaks. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 47. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 48. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 47 herein. 49. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted slander as to the Lallaks. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of repuation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 51. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 52. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs | through 51 herein. 53. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted a tortious invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy. dent Cis D-9 54. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 55. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 56. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 55 herein. 57. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted extreme and outrageous conduct which intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional harm, said actions constituting an intentional infliction of emotional distress without economic or social justification. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 59. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 60. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 59 herein. 61. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments resulted directly and proximately from the D-10 wrongful acts and omissions, gross negligence and breach of duties of the Defendants. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 63. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 64. Realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 63 herein. 65. Defendants Scott County, Scott County Board of Com- missioners, Scott County Attorney’s Office, Scott County Sheriff’s Department, Scott County Welfare Department, City of Jordan, Jordan City Council, Jordan Mayor’s office and Jordan Police Department failed to adequately supervise and train their respective agents. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plain- tiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of, without limitation, lost wages and benefits, medical ex- penses, mental anguish and suffering, loss of reputation, damages to their family relations, and alienation of affection between parent and child. 67. All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences, arrests and imprisonments constituted willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants, and each of them, to liability for punitive damages pursuant to the applicable statutes and common law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). + il D-11 2. For an award of punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). 3. For a temporary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from taking any ac- tions in reprisal for Plaintiffs having instituted this action or for any other reason. 4. For their costs, disbursements, attorneys’s fees, and witness fees pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws. 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair, just and equitable. DATED: November 19, 1984. HANLEY, HERGOTT & HUNZIKER By /S/Thomas J. Hunziker Thomas J. Hunziker 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 338-6990 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Charles Lallak and Carol Lallak and DUNKLEY AND BENNETT, P.A. By /S/Michael D. Madigan Michael D. Madigan 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 339-1290 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Lallak and Jennifer Lallak E-1 IN THE United States Bistrict Court DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION Daniel J. Meger and Wanda Lou Meger, in- dividually and as parents and natural guar- dians of Brian Meger and Chad Meger, minors, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT versus DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Scott County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Minnesota; R. Kathleen Morris, in- dividually and in her official capacity as at- torney for Scott County; Scott County Board of Commissioners; Scott County Welfare Department and Margaret Subby, it’s Director of Human Services; Scott County Sheriff’s Department and it’s Deputies, Patrick. Morgan and Michael Busch; Doris Wilker, Social Worker, Scott County Welfare Department; Joel Kauf- mann, psychologist, Scott County Welfare Department; Jane McNaught, and Center for Child and Family Therapy; B. A. Ber- show, M.D., and Burnsville Family Physi- cians, P.A.; John Doe and Mary Doe and other employees of Scott County whose names and titles are unknown, Defendants. E-2 PLAINTIFFS’, for their Complaint herein, allege as follows: JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT (1) This action arises under, and jurisdiction is based upon United States Code Title 42, Section 1983 and Section 1985. Plaintiffs are persons within the jurisdiction of the United States and have been deprived of their rights, privileges, and im- munities secured under the Laws and Constitution of the United States. Defendants have injured the Plaintiffs causing them damages in excess of Ten Thousand and 00/100’s ($10,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. UNIVERSAL ALLEGATIONS (2) Plaintiffs Daniel J. Meger and Wanda Lou Meger are residents of the City of Jordan, County of Scott, State of Min- nesota. Plaintiffs are husband and wife, having been married on May 7, 1977. Plaintiffs have two minor children, namely: Brian Meger, born July 20, 1975, age 9; and Chad Meger, born September 16, 1978, age 6. (3) Defendant R. Kathleen Morris is a Resident of the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, and is the chief legal officer and agent of Scott County. (4) Defendant Scott County Board of Commissioners is the entity responsible for the political and legal actions of Scott County. All actions complained of hereinafter represent the of- ficial and negligent supervisory policies of the Scott County Board of Commissioners, and Scott County. (5) Defendant Margaret Subby was at all times relevant herein the Director of Scott County Human Services and in that capacity failed to properly supervise employees under her direc- tion and allowed said employees to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil and constitutional rights under color of State Law. (6) Defendant Scott County Sheriff’s Department failed to properly supervise its employees in that it impliedly relinquished control of Defendant Deputy Sheriffs’ Pat Morgan and Michael Busch to R. Kathleen Morris, for the purpose of suborning a E-3 potential perjury by witnesses that were subject to Defendants coercion, and were particularily vulnerably by virtue of age and or mental infirmities. (7) Defendant Doris Wilker and other social workers were employed by Scott County Human Services. In addition to other actions, further alleged below, Defendants acted as primary questioners and interrogators of the minor Plaintiffs and in this capacity subjected them to severe emotional and psychological trauma, and abuse resulting from their cruel and coercive questioning techniques. (8) Defendant Joel Kaufman is and at all times relevant herein was a licensed psychologist employed by Scott County and in that capacity acted to further the conspiracy be serving to pro- vide Defendant R. Kathleen Morris with psychological evalua- tions of minor Plaintiffs and in addition to providing these evaluations, Defendant Kaufman interrogated and manipulated the minor Plaintiffs psychologically and transmitted false and misleading allegations to Defendant R. Kathleen Morris. (9) Defendant Jane McNaught is a licensed psychologist who practices with the Center for Child and Family Therapy pro- viding consulting services for Scott County on a contract basis and in that capacity acted to further the conspiracy by serving to provide Defendants R. Kathleen Morris and Scott County Human Services with psychological evaluations and reports that were false and misleading and the product of her coercive and intimidating techniques of interrogation. Said evaluations and reports were provided by Defendant Jane McNaught while act- ing under color of State Law. (10) Defendant B. A. Bershow, M.D., is a medical doctor who practices with Burnsville Family Physicians, P.A., pro- viding medical examinations for Scott County on a contract basis and in such capacity provided Defendants R. Kathleen Morris and Scott County Human Services with evaluations and reports that were false and misleading. Said Defendant also in- terrogated the minor Plaintiffs herein in a manner that was coercive and manipulative so as to further the conspiracy al- leged herein while acting under color of State Law. (11) Defendants John Doe and Mary Doe and other E-4 employees of Scott County whose names and titles are unknown, committed acts in furtherance of the deprivation to Plaintiffs due process and equal protection of law by their inten- tional and negligent action as alleged herein. (12) On or about June 5, 1984, Defendants Scott County, Scott County Welfare Department, Margaret Subby, Doris Wilker, Joel Kaufman, Patrick Morgan, Michael Busch and R. Kathleen Morris, caused through their agents and under color of State Law, the removal of Plaintiffs two minor children from Plaintiffs home. (13) Defendants R. Kathleen Morris, Doris Wilker and other employees of Scott County, conspired to coerce and intimidate Plaintiff Wanda Lou Meger by false and misleading representa- tions under color of State Law to sign a document allowing for the voluntary placement of the minor Plaintiffs herein in foster care. (13a) defendants failed to advise Plaintiff Wanda Lou Meger of her statutory right to have counsel available prior to signing the placement document. (13b) Defendants willfully and deceitfully misrepresented to Plaintiff Wanda Lou Meger that her minor children would be returned to the family home within 72 hours. (13c) Defendants willfully maligned and impugned the character of Plaintiff Daniel J. Meger, making allegations of physical and sexual abuse so as to coerce Plaintiff Wanda Lou Meger to sign the voluntary placement documents. (13d) Defendants conspired to deprive the minor children herein of their rights under Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sec- tion 13.40, subd. 2, the so-called ‘‘Tennessen warning,’’ which is binding upon all social workers but not police. (13e) Defendants further conspired to violate Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 626.556, specifically including, but not limiting to subd. 10. (13f) Defendants further conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights through their total abrogation of and failure to com- ply with the safeguards provided in Minnesota Statutes An- notated Section 260, et seq. (14) Defendant R, Kathleen Morris with the knowledge and ’ E-5 consent of Scott County and other Defendants named herein, exercised power and authority not properly vested in her capa- city as chief legal counsel and agent of Scott County further continuing the forced destruction of Plaintiff’s family unit in the absence of any formal criminal charges. (15) defendant has in the furtherance of the persecution of Plaintiffs, violated the Laws and the Constitution of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the Cannons of Ethics gover- ning the practice of Law in her malicious persecution of the Plaintiffs. (16) Specifically, Defendant R. Kathleen Morris has: (16a) Caused Plaintiffs Daniel J. Meger and Wanda Lou Meger to have to endure the uncertainty and trauma of threatened criminal prosecution. Said threats being founded in malice and without probable cause thus perverting the pro- secutorial function and duties. (16b) Destroyed material evidence in the form of audio and video tapes of interviews with the minor Plaintiffs herein and with other alleged child victims, rather than disclose this poten- tially exculpatory mataerial to Plaintiffs counsel. (16c) Hid, covered up and withheld exculpatory evidence gathered at the State’s direction by police and investigatory personnel. (16d) Threatened the minor Plaintiffs herein and other child witnesses who were potential State’s witnesses with jail, other punitive incarceration, and with threats that they would not see their parents again unless they gave testimony incriminating the accused adults. (16e) Interrogated the minor Plaintiffs herein and other child witnesses using severely coercive methods which resulted in psychological disorders and traumas to the minor Plaintiffs herein. (16f) Intimidated and accused the minor Plaintiffs herein and other child witnesses of lying if they did not deliver in- criminating testimony and lied to minor Plaintiffs herein and other child witnesses by telling them that their siblings had already made incriminating statements about their parents. (16g) Encouraged minor Plaintiffs herein and other child er E-6 witnesses through role playing to collectively vent accusations. (16h) Offered bribes, in an effort to obtain prosecution witnesses. (16i) Suborned perjury of a major prosecution witness in ex- change for plea bargaining concessions. (16j) Represented to the Family Court and Plaintiffs counsel that Family Court appointees, foster parents, guardians ad litems, and social workers were not engaged in collecting infor- mation for the prosecution. (16k) That Defendant R. Kathleen Morris did falsely, maliciously and wantonly impute to Plaintiffs Daniel J. Meger and Wanda Lou Meger by then and there in the presence and hearing of a third party, falsely, maliciously and wantonly say- ing of and concerning Plaintiffs that they were guilty of heinous sexual abuse of their minor children. (161) That Defendant R. Kathleen Morris further falsely, maliciously and wantonly caused said allegations of sexual abuse to be published in a medium available to the general public causing severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs Daniel J. Meger and Wanda Lou Meger and irreprably damaging their standing in the community. (17) Further all of the actions alleged herein represent the of- ficial deliberate policy of the office of County Attorneys and the County Board. (18) The aforesaid false imprisonment, confinement, separa- tion of the family and interference with the family relation were made under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Minnesota and deprived Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities under the United States Constitution and laws, specifically including but not limited to United States Constitution Article XIV, Section q, in that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their liberty without due process of law; United States Constitution Article IV, in that Plaintiffs have been denied their right to be secure in their persons and home and from having their persons seized without warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affir- mation; and United States Code, Title 92, Section 1983, in that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their rights, privileges and im- E-7 munities secured by the United States Constitution and laws by Defendants acting upon color of Minnesota statutes, or- dinances, regulations, customs and usage. (19) The aforesaid actions by Defendants were acts in fur- therance of a conspiracy. Defendants and specifically R. Kathleen Morris and her officers and agents were engaged in a publicity campaign against child abuse and incest. Part of this campaign involved the invention by Defendant Morris and others of a ‘‘sex ring’’ in Jordan for sexual abuse of children. Defendants thus in furtherance of this conspiracy recklessly sought out Plaintiffs as candidates for prosecution. These threats of prosecution were thus made without making any ade- quate substantiated inquiries regarding the welfare of the Plain- tiffs minor children and without probable cause and in willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and the Law and Constitution of the State of Minnesota. (20) The Defendants, by failing to make reasonable inquiries before removing the minor Plaintiffs herein from the home and by inducing Plaintiff Wanda Lou Meger to sign a voluntary placement document under the spector of threatened criminal prosecution, in addition to being guilty of conspiracy were grossly negligent. As a result of this gross negligence, and of other acts and omissions of the other Defendants herein as previously alleged, Plaintiffs have been greatly damaged, in that they have suffered great mental duress and anguish, have been caused to suffer damage to their family relations, have suffered alienation of affection between parent and child, have suffered injury to their reputations and have been greatly damaged in their enjoyment of their home and community and currently live in a state of fear of reprisal and other unwarranted govern- mental action by all of the aforesaid Defendants and other of- ficials of Scott County. (21) As a further result of their gross negligence the minor Plaintiffs have been falsely imprisoned and caused to suffer emotional and psychological harm which has and will continue to damage their maturation, growth and development. (22) All of the aforesaid acts, restraints, interferences and _~<« =-- -— E-8 false imprisonments were committed with a willful indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs so as to subject Defendants and each of them to punitive damages pursuant to the provisions of the statutes and common law of the United States of America. (23) Because of the matters set forth in all of the preceding paragraphs hereof, Plaintiffs have been forced to retain an at- torney to seek vindication of their rights and to assure them of the further peaceful enjoyment of their rights as residents of their community and the State of Minnesota and the United States. | WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand Judgment of Defendants and each of them, as follows: 1. For an award of compensatory damages in the amount of Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100’s ($7,500,000.00) Dollars. ? 2. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendants and others similarly situated, from committing such acts as are alleged in this Complaint in the future, in an amount of Fifteen Million and 00/100’s ($15.000,000.00) Dollars. 3. For temporary and permanent injunction enjoining Defen- dants and each of them, and all other officials of Scott County from taking any actions in reprisal for Plaintiffs having in- stituted this action or for any other reason. 4. For such other and further relif as to the Court may deem just and equitable. MURPHY, BLANCHAR & ELLIOTT /S/Patrick H. Elliott Patrick H. Elliott Attorney I.D. No. 134661 Attorney for Plaintiffs 7407 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426-1675 (612) 546-4472 Dated: Jan. 22, 1985 fe eee as bow Dated: Jan. 22, 1985 E-9 ANTHONY L. NOTERMAN, ESQ. /S/Anthony L. Noterman Anthony L. Noterman Attorney I.D. No. 79984 Attorney for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 158 Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-3844 ¥ i » P United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 85-5243 Greg Myers, etc., et al., Appellees, v. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. se ee * Duane Rank, et al., Appellees, Vv. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for aw os the District of Minnesota. Charles Lallak, etc., et al., Appellees, Vs R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. ** ee * Donald Buchan, etc., et al., Appellees, Vv. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. ** *# * * Daniel J. Meger, etc., et al., Appellees, v. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. * eek * Robert Bentz, etc., et al., Appellees, Vv. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. *e ee * Thomas Brown, et al., Appellees, Vv. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney Appellant. xe * * * F-3 George B. Gould, Appellee, Vv. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Appellant. No. 85-5244 Greg Myers, etc., et al., Appellees, Vv. Norm Pint, et al., Appellants. *ee ee * Charles Lallak, etc., et al., Appellees, v. Michael M. Busch, et al., Appellants. “ese &* * Donald Buchan, etc., et al., Appellees, ¥, Norm Pint, et al., Appellants. *e ee * Daniel J. Meger, etc., et al., Appellees, v. Patrick Morgan, et al., Appellants. F-4 *e ee * Robert Bentz, etc., et al., Appellees, v. Michael Busch, et al., Appellants. No. 85-5253 Donald Buchan, Cindy Buchan, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Courtney B. Buchan, Melissa Ellen Buchan, and William Donald Buchan, minors, Appellees, v. Scott County, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County At- torney, Scott County Human Services, Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services, Thomas Price, Phipps, Yonas & Price, P.A., Michaei Shea, Shea and Associates, Doris Wilker, Social Worker, Mary Tafs, Social Worker, Judy Dean, Social Worker, Susan DeVries, Psychologist, Appellants, and other Employees of Scott County Human Services whose names and titles are unknown, and Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, and F-5 Deputy Sheriffs Norm Pint, Patrick Morgan, and Michael Busch. No. 85-5257 Robert Bentz and Lois Bentz, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Marlin Bentz, William Bentz and Anthony Bentz, minors, Appellants, v. Scott County, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County At- torney; Margaret Subby, Scott County Welfare Department/Director of Human Services; Doris Wilker, Social Worker, Scott County Welfare Department; Michael Busch, Patrick Morgan and Norman Pint, Scott County Deputy Sheriffs; Michael Shea, Leslie Faricy, Appellees, Michael Shea and Associates; Earl Barrett; Cindy Christ; and John Doe and Mary Roe; and other employees of Scott County Human Ser- vices whose names and titles are unknown. F-6 No. 85-5261 Greg Myers and Jane Myers, et al., | Appellees, Vv Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, Appellant. *es 2 @ Charies Lallak and Carol Lallak, et al., Appellees, v Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, Appellant. sss @ @ Donald Buchan, Cindy Buchan, et al., Appellees, v. Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, Appellant. No. 85-5336 Robert Bentz, Lois Bentz, in- dividually and as parents and natural guardians of Marlin Bentz, William Bentz and Anthony Bentz, Appellants, ¥. Scott County, R. Kathleen Morris, Margaret Subby, Doris Wilker, Paul Thomsen, Guardian Ad Litem, Appellees, Michael Busch, Patrick Morgan, Norman Pint, Earl Barrett, Cindy Crist, John Doe, Mary Roe. No. 85-5408 Donald Buchan, Cindy Buchan, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Courtney B. Buchan, Melissa Ellen Buchan and William Donald Buchan, minors, Appellants, Vv. Scott County, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County At- torney; Scott County Human Services, Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services; Thomas Price, Phipps, Yonas & Price, P.A., Appellees,, Michael Shea, Shea and Associates, Doris Wilker, Social Worker; Mary Tafs, Social Worker; Judy Dean, Social Worker; Susan |g Fa eA a F-8 DeVries, Psychologist; other employees of Scott Human Services whose names and titles are unknown, Douglas Tietz, Sheriff of Scott County. No. 85-5409 Greg Myers and Jane Myers, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Andy Myers, Amy Myers and Brian Myers, minors, Appellants, v. Scott County and R. Kathleen Morris, Scott Coun- ty Attorney; Scott County Human Services and Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services; Thomas Price, and Phipps, Yonas Price, P.A., Appellees, Paul Thomsen, Guardian Ad Litem; Doris Wilker, Social Worker; and other Employees of Scott County Human Services whose names and titles are unknown; and DOuglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff; Deputy Sheriffs Norm Pint, Patrick Morgan and Michael Busch and City County of Jordan Minnesota, and Alvin Erickson, Jordan Chief of Police. F-9 No. 85-5412 Charles Lallak and Carol Lallak, husband and wife; and Jeffrey Lallak and Jen- nifer Lallak, minors, by Charles Lallak and Carol Lallak, their parents and natural guardians, Appellants, v. Scott County; Scott County Board of Commissioners; Scott County Attorney’s Of- fice; R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney; Scott County Sheriff’s Department, Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff; Michael M. Busch, Scott County Deputy Sheriff, Patrick Morgan, Scott Coun- ty Deputy Sheriff; David Einertson, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; Norman Pint, Scott County Deputy Sheriff; Other employees of Scott County Sheriff’s Department whose names and titles are unknown; Scott County Human Services Department; Rachel Paff, Social Worker with Scott County Human Services Department; Other employees of Scott County Human Ser- vices Department whose names and titles are unknown; F-10 Larry Norring, Officer with Jordan Police Department, Thomas L. Price, and Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A., Appellees. No. 85-5007 Greg Myers and Jane Myers, individiually and as parents and natural guardians of An- dy Myers, Amy Myers and Brian Myers, minors, Appellants, i Scott County and R. Kathleen Morris, Scott Coun- ty Attorney; Scott County Human Services and Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services; Thomas Price, and Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A., Paul Thomsen, Guardian Ad Litem, Appellee, Doris Wilker, Social Worker, and other employees of Scott County Human Services whose names and titles are unknown; and Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, Deputy Sheriffs Norm Pint, Patrick Morgan and Michael Busch, and City County of Jordan, Minnesota and Alvin Erickson, Jordan Chief of Police. Appellants, F-11 No. 86-5008 Donald Buchan, Cindy Buchan, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Courtney B. Buchan, Melissa Ellen Buchan and William Donald Buchan, minors, Appellants, ws Scott County, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County At- torney; Scott County Human Services, Peg Subby, its Director of Human Services; Thomas Price, Phipps, Yonas & Price, P.A. Michael Shea, Shea and Associates, Diane Johnson, Guardian ad Litem, John Manahan, Guar- dian ad witem, Appellees, Doris Wilker, Social Worker; Mary Tafs, Social Worker; Judy Dean, Social Worker; Susan DeVries, Psychologist; other employees of Scott County Human Services whose names and titles are unknown, Douglas Tietz, Sheriff of Scott County. No. 86-5076 Coralene Rawson, individual- ly and as a parent and F-12 natural guardian of Sarah Rawson, Appellant, wa Scott County; R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County At- torney; Scott County Human Services and Peg Subby, Director of Scott County Human Services; Diane Johnson, Guardian ad Litem of Sarah Rawson; John Manahan; Guardian ad Litem of Sarah Rawson, Appellees, Doris Wilker, Social Worker for Scott County Human Ser- vices; Karen Kandig, Social Worker for Scott County Human Services, Douglas Tietz, Scott County Sheriff, Michael Busch, Scott County Deputy Sheriff, Hubert H. Humphrey III, as Minnesota Attorney General and in- dividually, Norman Coleman, as Assistant Minnesota At- torney General and in- dividually, Michael Jordan, as Attorney General and in- dividually; Charles Balck, as Assistant Ramsey County At- torney, and Individually, Wright Walling, Attorney for Sarah Rawson and Diane Johnson, guardians ad Litem, Appellee. AP Se oon tel he Sai ae F-13 Submitted: May 13, 1986 Filed: February 3, 1987 Before ROSS, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBBON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ROSS, Circuit Judge. Before us are the consolidated appeals in eight civil rights lawsuits which grew out of a child sexual abuse investigation in Jordan, Minnesota, during 1983-84. Thirteen of the fifteen plaintiffs in these cases were charged by Scott County Attorney, R. Kathleen Morris, with criminal sexual activity involving one or more minor children. The investigation began in September 1983 with the arrest of James Rud, a person who later entered a plea of guilty to multiple i counts of child sexual abuse. Thirteen of the plaintiffs in these cases 4 were arrested and charged between January 11, 1984, and June 4, 1984. Where minor children were residing in the home, they were removed on temporary police holds after a parent’s arrest and subsequently placed in foster care. The two plaintiffs who were never charged nevertheless lost temporary custody of their children. One criminal case involving two of the plaintiffs in these appeals went to trial, and the County lost. Upon the acquittal of these plaintiffs, the advice of therapists and guardians that testifying at additional trials would be against the best interests of the juvenile . witnesses and the development of an investigation into alleged homicides, the county attorney dismissed all pending charges against the plaintiffs and others. The plaintiffs then filed these civil rights lawsuits against Morris and various other defendants. eg eee ee Appealable Orders The appeals are from a decision by the district court! to deny \In re Scott County Master Docket, 618 F.Supp. 1534 (D. Minn. 1985), the Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. F-14 certain motions for summary judgment and to grant others. All of the defendants, including many who are not before us in these appeals, moved for summary judgment in the district court on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity from suit and other grounds. The district court denied the motions submitted by (1) Scott County Attorney R. Kathleen Morris; (2) Scott County Sheriff Douglas Tietz; (3) four of the sheriff’s deputies, Michael Busch, Patrick Morgan, Norm Pint and David Einertson, and (4) a therapist, Susan DeVries. The district court entered summary judg- ment in favor of (1) Jordan police officer Larry Norring; (2) guardians ad litem Diane Johnson, John Manahan and Paul Thomsen; (3) therapists Thomas Price and Phipps-Yonas & Price, P.A., Michael Shea, Leslie Faricy and Shea & Associates, PA., and (4) a court-appointed attorney, Wright Walling. The orders entering summary judgment in favor of the police officer, guardians ad litem, certain therapists and a court- ap- pointed attorney were certified for review under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). The appeals by the prosecutor, sheriff, sheriff’s deputies and a therapist contesting the denial of their motions for summary judgment are appealable on the basis of the limited exception created in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 2816 (1985), for denials of motions for summary judgment asserting immunity defenses. See Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc., 800 F.2d 199, 202-03 (8th Cir. 1986); White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 814 (9th Cir. 1986). The Plaintiffs The plaintiffs in these cases came to the attention of law enforce- ment personnel in the following sequence of events. On September 26, 1983, Chris Brown? reported to Larry Norring of the Jordan, Minnesota police department that James Rud, a resident of the Valley Green trailer park in Jordan, Minnesota, had been sexually 2Christine Brown is not a party to these appeals. F-15 abusing her daughter, S. Krahl. Then Judy Kath? made a complaint concerning Rud’s abuse of her daughter, V. Kath. Norring per- formed a warrantless arrest of Rud on September 26, 1983. Criminal charges were soon brought, and as the investigation con- tinued, additional criminal complaints were filed against Rud, ulti- mately totalling 108 counts of sexual abuse involving many children. He eventually entered a guilty plea and is serving a term of imprisonment. After Rud had been arrested and charged and child victims were being questioned, other child victims of Rud were identified and acts of sexual abuse by other adults were described. The magnitude of the job of questioning Rud victims soon exceeded the capacity of the small Jordan police department. By October 1, 1983, Jordan police chief Alvin Erickson requested investigative assistance from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Norring and three BCA officers interviewed children until in early November 1983, the Scott County sheriff’s department en- tered the investigation and the BCA withdrew. Norring was as- signed to assist in the investigation, and he maintained investigative contact with S. Krahl and her brother, J. Krahl, and V. Kath (all Rud victims). By the end of November 1983, eight persons had been formally charged including Chris Brown, Judy Kath and Robert Rawson. (Robert Rawson was implicated by two Rud victims as a person who had sexually < oused them.)4 In interviews with Larry Norring on January 10 and 11, 1984, S. Krahl, J. Krahl and V. Kath described acts of sexual abuse by plaintiffs Tom and Helen Brown. Investigation by law enforcement personnel into James Rud charges was still in progress as of this date. Deputy sheriff Michael Busch swore out criminal complaints incorporating Norring’s report of these interviews, on the basis of which Busch obtained arrest warrants. Tom and Helen Brown were arrested on January 11, 1984, by Norring, Busch and deputy sheriff 3Judy Kath is not a party to these appeals. 4Robert Rawson is not a party to these appeals. F-16 Patrick Morgan. Two minor children, J. Brown and B. Brown, were removed from the home on January 11, 1984. In interviews with detectives Busch and Morgan on January 12, 13, and 20, 1984, S. Krahl and J. Brown described acts of abuse by plaintiffs Robert and Lois Bentz. Morgan swore out criminal com- plaints on the basis of these statements and obtained arrest war- rants. Robert and Lois Bentz were arrested on January 20, 1984, and their three minor children were removed from the home on that date. The Bentz children were not questioned until after their parents had been arrested.° Another Rud victim, K. Fossen, implicated plaintiff Greg Myers as did J. Brown and B. Brown. These children described acts of abuse by Myers during interviews on February 6, 1984, with detec- tives Busch and Morgan. Busch and Morgan performed a warrant- less arrest of Greg Myers on February 6, 1984, and deputy sheriffs Norm Pint and David Menden were assigned by deputy sheriff David Einertson to remove three minor children from the Myers’ home. Busch swore out a criminal complaint against Greg Myers on February 8, 1984. The two older Myers children were not ques- tioned until after Greg Myers’ arrest. The youngest, aged two, was not questioned. By March 1984, V. Kath (one of the two Rud victims who had previously described sexual abuse upon themselves by Robert Raw- son) also stated that Robert Rawson had been abusing his daughter S. Rawson. On March 22, 1984, detectives Busch and Morgan removed S. Rawson from her home over the protests of her mother, plaintiff Coralene Rawson. Within four days a neglect petition was filed based upon statements by S. Rawson to the sheriff’s deputies after she had been removed from her home. On March 31, 1984, ’Additional charges were brought against Robert and Lois Bentz on July 23, 1984, based on interviews with the Bentz children, J. Brown and two victims of James Rud (S. Krahl and K. Fossen). Deputy sheriff Norman Pint was the complaining witness, and the criminal complaint incorporated statements by the children concerning games of nude hide and seek, sodomy, oral sex and sexual acts involving a cat in which they had been forced by Robert and Lois Bentz to participate. F-17 plaintiff Coralene Rawson was arrested and charged with sexually abusing S. Rawson. In interviews with detectives Busch and Pint on May 5, 15, and 22, 1984, the two older Myers children implicated plaintiff Jane Myers (their mother) and plaintiffs Charles and Carol Lallak and Duane and Dee Rank. On May 23, 1984, Busch swore out criminal complaints and obtained warrants for the arrest of Jane Myers, the Lallaks and the Ranks, and, with detective Pint, arrested the Lal- laks and Ranks. Jane Myers presented herself at the Scott County jail. The Myers children had previously been removed from the home upon the arrest of Greg Myers. The Ranks had no minor children, and the Lallaks’ children had been living with relatives outside of Jordan since shortly after Greg Myers’ arrest. Donald and Cindy Buchan had sought examination by a physi- cian and interviews with deputy sheriffs for their daughter, M. Buchan, after Greg Myers’ arrest. M. Buchan was a close friend of the Myers’ daughter, and the Myers had babysat for the Buchan children. Through May 1984, M. Buchan reported no abuse. On May 30, 1984, however, Morris was engaged in trial preparation with the Myers’ daughter, A. Myers. A. Myers stated that M. Buchan was her friend and that persons who had hurt M. Buchan were A. Myers’ parents and M. Buchan’s father (but not mother). Because Donald Buchan was a Scott County deputy sheriff, the BCA rather than the sheriff’s office investigated. On June 4, 1984, Special Agent Patrick Shannon of the BCA participated in inter- views with the two older Myers children and M. Buchan, all of whom implicated plaintiffs Donald and Cindy Buchan in acts of sexual abuse. Agent Shannon performed a warrantless arrest of the Buchans on June 4, 1984, and swore out criminal complaints on June 6, 1984.° The three minor Buchan children were removed from home on the day of their parents’ arrest. By November 1983, the older son of plaintiffs Daniel and Wanda Meger, and possibly their younger son, had been identified as victims of James Rud. The children were living at home, receiving 6Agent Shannon is not a party to these appeals. F-18 counselling by Scott County Human Services personnel and being questioned by Scott County authorities. On June 5, 1984, the older child described to detectives Busch and Morgan sexual abuse by Daniel Meger. Both children subsequently told Busch and Morgan about acts of anal penetration with fingers and objects and oral sexual activity performed upon them by both parents. On June 14, 1984, the older child told a physician of sexual abuse by both parents. In July or August 1984, both children described sexual abuse by their parents and a grandmother to a private therapist hired when the parents’ attorney requested assessment by a private psychologist in lieu of Scott County Human Services personnel. When her older son’s statements about Daniel Meger were com- municated to plaintiff Wanda Meger on June 5, 1984, she signed a document authorizing voluntary placement of the children in foster care. However, she states that she was pressured and misled into signing the agreement. The voluntary placement was rescinded in August 1984, at which time the Scott County Human Services Department filed a neglect petition. The Megers were never arrested or charged. Discovery After the prosecutor dismissed all outstanding charges, the Min- nesota Attorney General’s office assumed responsibility both for any additional criminal proceedings which might develop and for the pending proceedings in the Scott County Court, Family Divi- sion [family court]. On behalf of the state, the BCA and FBI conducted an intensive investigation into why the criminal charges had been dropped and whether there existed probable cause to bring additional charges of sexual abuse or homicide. These agents recommended to the state Attorney General that no credible evi- dence existed in support of homicide allegations, and insufficient evidence existed to justify new sexual abuse charges. The Attorney General issued a report entitled Report on Scott County Investiga- tions, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General (Feb. 12, 1985). In addition, in March 1985, plaintiff Cindy Buchan filed a te pa ane RA RRS I. oti AEE APR he 60 ha LON Gea Wi F-19 petition with the Governor of Minnesota seeking the removal of R. Kathleen Morris from office for malfeasance. See Bush v. Perpich, 370 N.W.2d 886, 887 (Minn. 1985). The governor established a commission which conducted hearings and took testimony, id. at 888, including some from parties to these appeals. Besides the volumes of testimony and other evidence generated by these two investigations, substantial discovery occurred in con- nection with the criminal proceedings, in particular the trial against Robert and Lois Bentz, and the family court proceedings, in parti- cular the Myers and Buchan trials in 1984-85. Beyond the discovery developed in connection with the state investigations, criminal proceedings and family court matters, the parties to these civil rights cases submitted affidavits and other materials to the district court in support of and in opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment motions. Furthermore, the district court declined to stay discovery pending the outcome of these appeals. counsel for the Buchan plaintiffs, for example, has as- serted in a brief that as of the date when briefs were prepared, “[i]n- fact, discovery in this case is virtually completed by court order on February 14, 1986.” Matters developed in discovery which had not been presented to the district court were discussed in various briefs, and we issued two orders in April 1986 permitting expansion of the record before us to include these materials as well as additional documents in response to the supplemented record. As the result of all of this discovery, a massive multi- volume fact- filled record is before us in connection with these appeals. We reject the plaintiffs’ assertion that we should now ignore this record and decide these appeals on the basis of the pleadings alone. See, e.zg., Kompare v. Stein, 801 F2d 883, 889 (7th Cir. 1986), reasoning that in determining immunity issues, it is not necessary to accept as true allegations which are wholly without factual support in a record which contains, among other items, evidence developed at the civil rights plaintiffs’ prior criminal trial. We are aware of our duty to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, but only genuine issues of mate- rial fact can defeat a motion for summary judgment. Mere allegations are insufficient to raise a genuine issue. The [plain- F-20 tiffs] argue for an exception to this rule because the district court limited discovery on the grounds that qualified immu- nity protects government officials from suit (including discov- ery), as well as from the payment of monetary damages. The district court’s limitation of discovery was proper, particularly because the [plaintiffs] had the opportunity to explore the facts in the previous criminal proceedings. Id. at 886 (emphasis in original). The Challenged Conduct Although phrased in terms of conspiracy, fraud, malice, coercion and violation of constitutional rights and state law, the actual conduct of which the plaintiffs complain amounts to prosecution, handling of evidentiary material, arrest, interrogation of children and separation of parents from children. These acts, plaintiffs assert, caused them to suffer injuries including loss of liberty, loss of employment, emotional distress, alienation of affection between parent and child, injury to reputation and other harms. The plaintiffs allege that the prosecutor abused the power of her office in the manner in which she initiated or threatened prosecu- tions, handled evidentiary material and otherwise conducted mat- ters preliminary to and encompassed within the institution of criminal charges. The prosecutor is also alleged to have erroneously advised law enforcement personnel that probable cause existed to arrest various plaintiffs. The sheriff’s deputies allegedly arrested plaintiffs without proba- ble cause and deceived judicial officers as to the reliability of statements by children on which judicial determinations of proba- ble cause were based. The sheriff allegedly failed to intercede to prevent abuses by his deputies an7 the prosecutor. The prosecutor, sheriff’s deputies, as well as guardians, therapists and a court-appointed attorney are alleged to have interrogated children for an improper purpose (conspiring to elicit fabricated accusations against the plaintiffs) and in an improper manner (using methods so flawed that they inevitably produced false and fabri- cated accusations). : , | F-21 Various defendants are also alleged to have contributed in one or more ways to the separation of parents from their children. The sheriff’s deputies, for example, removed minor children from their homes on “police holds” pursuant to MINN. STAT. ANN. § 260.165(1)(c)(2) (west 1982) upon the arrest of various plaintiffs. The prosecutor may have approved the summary removal of children from the plaintiffs’ custody and certainly approved the initiation of neglect proceedings in the family court. She also in- duced one plaintiff to sign a voluntary placement agreement. Cer- tain therapists advised the family court against visitation between plaintiffs and children. Guardians allegedly advised in favor of foster care, recommended against parental visitation and refused to divulge the location of foster care placements. We have examined the claims of immunity and other defenses asserted by each defendant with respect to these acts, and we conclude that each defendant is entitled to summary judgment for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PROSECUTOR Initiating Prosecutions and Handling Evidence All of the plaintiffs have sued Scott County Attorney R. Kathleen Morris for her role in the initiation of criminal proceed- ings against them and her handling of evidentiary material. They allege variously that she filed or threatened to file criminal com- plaints against them recklessly, maliciously, fraudulently and without adequate investigation; that she caused the Bentz plaintiffs to endure a criminal trial; that she resisted certain plaintiffs’ pretrial release from custody upon reasonable terms; that she entered into a plea bargain with James Rud which was illegal; that she suborned perjury of a major prosecution witness (James Rud) in exchange for plea bargaining concessions; that she made or caused misrepresen- tations to the court during family court proceedings; that she caused witnesses to give false and unfavorable testimony; that she F-22 withheld potentially exculpatory evidence, and that she destroyed two items of evidence. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976) established that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations committed in “initi- ating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” These func- tions, “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” as opposed to investigative “police work” or administra- tive duties, must be absolutely shielded in the interests of the office, the judicial system and society.’ Thus a prosecutor does not, in a civil rights action for damages, 7See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424-27 (1976): If a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties no Less than would the threat of common-law suits for malicious prosecution. A prosecutor is duty bound to exercise his best judgment both in deciding which suits to bring and in conducting them in court. The public trust of the prosecutor’s office would suffer if he were constrained in making every decision by the consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a suit for damages. Such suits could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State’s advocate. * * * Further, if the prosecutor could be made to answer in court each time such a person charged him with wrongdoing, his energy and attention would be diverted from the pressing duty of enfercing the criminal law. The affording of only a qualified immunity to the prosecutor also could have an adverse effect upon the functioning of the criminal justice system. Attaining the system’s goal of accurately determining guilt or innocence requires that both the prosecution and the defense have wide discretion in the conduct of the trial and the presentation of evidence. The veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify * * * . If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevarit evidence. The ultimate fairness of the operation of the system itself could be weakened by subjecting prosecutors to § 1983 liability. Various post-trial procedures are available to determine whether an accused has received a fair trial. * * * [Their] focus should not be blurred by even the subconscious knowledge that a post-trial decision in favor of the accused might result in the prosecutor’s being called upon to respond in damages for his error or mistaken judgment. F-23 have to defend prosecutorial mistakes if those mistakes occurred in the performance of a function recognized as inherent in the prose- cutor’s role as an advocate. Moreover, because the immunity de- pends not upon the defendant’s status as a prosecutor but upon the “functional nature of the activities” of which a plaintiff complains, id. at 430, immunity for performance of inherently prosecutorial functions is not defeated by allegations of improper motivation such as malice, vindictiveness or self- interest. See, e.g., Wahl v. Mclver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11th Cir. 1985); Lerwill v. Joslin, 712 F.2d 435, 441 (Oth Cir. 1983). Similarly, allegations of abusive, illegal or unethical conduct must fail if they represent an attempt to impose damages liability for acts encompassed in the initiation or conduct of adversarial proceedings by a prosecutor. Accordingly, the decision to file charges is protected, even in the face of accusations of: vindictive prosecution, Wahl v. Mclver, supra, 773 F.2d at 1173; or reckless prosecution without adequate investigation, id.; Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 269 (7th Cir. 1985); Henzel v. Gerstein, 608 F.2d 654, 657 (Sth Cir. 1979); or prosecution without jurisdiction, Wahl v. McIver, supra, 773 F2d at 1173; Lerwill v. Joslin, supra, 712 F.2d at 438 (even if with malice); or conspiracy to prosecute for a crime that never occurred, Rachuy v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 663 F.2d 57, 58 (8th Cir. 1981). Similarly, threatening criminal prosecution is within the scope of absolute immunity. Goldschmidt v. Patchett, 686 F.2d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 1982); Henzel v. Gerstein, supra, 608 F.2d at 657. Other acts encompassed within the protected function of initiat- ing a case include instituting the termination of parental rights even if allegedly without notice to the parent, Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1285 (8th Cir. 1980); procuring a warrant for the arrest of a charged defendant, Lerwill v. Joslin, supra, 712 F.2d at 438, and advocating a particular level of bail, id. at 438, 439. A “prosecutor’s activities in the plea bargaining context” warrant absolute immu- nity, Jaylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450, 453 (2d Cir. 1981) (despite alleged misrepresentations). Cf. McGruder v. Necaise, 733 F.2d 1146, 1148 (Sth Cir. 1984) (claim alleging efforts to intimidate a civil rights plaintiff into dismissing a damages suit in exchange for F-24 dismissal of criminal charges held barred by absolute immunity - because “[t]he decision to initiate, maintain, or dismiss criminal charges is at the core of the prosecutorial function.”). As for the handling of evidentiary material, allegations that a prosecutor knowingly offered, used or presented false, misleading or perjured testimony at trial or before a grand jury do not defeat absolute prosecutorial immunity, regardless of how reprehensible such conduct would be if it occurred. Jmbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424 U.S. at 413, 416, 431; Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 77, 80 (6th Cir. 1986); Morrison v. City of Baton Rouge, 761 F.2d 242, 248 (Sth Cir. 1985) (even if with malice); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 559 (lth Cir. 1984). The same is true for allegations of withholding or suppressing exculpatory evidence. Jmbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424 U.S. at 413, 416, 431; White v. Murphy, 789 F.2d 614, 615-16 (8th Cir. 1986) (conspiracy to conceal an unlawful arrest and suppress favorable evidence); Campbell v. Maine, 787 F.2d 776, 777-78 (Ist Cir. 1986) (conspiracy to frame the complainant and failure to disclose ex- culpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)); Fullman v. Graddick, supra, 739 F.2d at 559 (conspiracy to withhold material evidence helpful to the defense); Henzel v. Ger- stein, supra, 608 F.2d at 657 (suppressing exculpatory evidence). Forcing a witness to testify and securing the attendance of wit- nesses “is associated with the judicial process and * * * any claim against a prosecutor arising from that activity is barred by absolute immunity.” Hamilton v. Daley, 777 F.2d 1207, 1213 (7th Cir. 1985) (despite allegations that the prosecutor knew the testimony to be given would be false). Soliciting and suborning perjured testimony does not create liability in damages for a prosecutor “acting as an advocate in a judicial proceeding.” Tylor v. Kavanaugh, Supra 640 F.2d at 452. Accord rachyt V. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Supra, 617 F.2d 320, 322 (2d Cir.), cert. evidence); Lee v. Willins, 617 F.2d 320, 322 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 861 (1980) (subjecting the complainant to the ordeal of criminal trial by allegedly falsifying evidence and coercing perjured testimony). In short, with the possible exception of the alleged destruction of rab a te AAO EL A BOR REEMA AORN Meisel en ae RRS we > .s F-25 evidence, all of the previously enumerated claims against Morris are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity, because they represent an effort to impose liability for her role in initiating adversarial proceedings and presenting the prosecutor’s case. On the basis of the foregoing authorities and the reasons for the immunity as discussed in Jmbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424 U.S. at 424-27, Morris is entitled to summary judgment as to these claims and allegations. Destruction of Evidence As for the two items of evidence which were destroyed, the first was R. Kathleen Morris’ 1984 appointments calendar.* The calendar is alleged to have significance with respect to two issues: (1) the earliest date at which Morris became actively involved in the events giving rise to these lawsuits and (2) the frequency of her contacts with children. The plaintiffs assert that Morris, acting as an investigator, be- came actively involved in ferreting out candidates for prosecution in November 1983. They rely on a statement attributed to Jordan police officer Larry Norring by FBI agent Robert Erwin after an interview between the two on - December 19, 1984. Norring is _ quoted by Erwin as stating that Morris “got actively involved in the investigation around November 1983.” In the same report, however, Norring is quoted as saying that Morris or her staff began inter- viewing children in the spring (of 1984). Morris identified the date at which she began interviewing children as February 1984. Since the calendar was for 1984, it could not have been used to establish Morris’ activities in November 1983. The calendar there- fore is without evidentiary significance with respect to the issue of ®Morris contends that the calendar was discarded in a routine fashion in Novem- ber 1984 when she received her new calendar for 1985 (which included the month of December 1984). However, on November 20, 1984, the Lallaks served Morris with a proposed nondestruct order attached to their civil rights complaint. The order directed preservation of “calendars” among other “documents”. While the proposed nondestruct order was not signed by a magistrate until December 10, 1984, Morris had been placed on notice that the Lallaks were seeking access to the calendar. F-26 whether Morris’ initial involvement began in 1983. The next issue on which the calendar might have had some relevance was the frequency of Morris’ contacts with the children during 1984. The central theory of the plaintiffs’ claims is that the children were questioned by a great many people including Morris, law enforcement officers, health professionals and others, all parti- cipating in a conspiracy to elicit fabricated accusations against the plaintiffs. Morris, while denying conspiracy, does not deny that the children were questioned extensively by many people. Nor does she place any specific numerical limit or estimate on the number of overall contacts she had with suspected victims. Thus the calendar, if we accept the plaintiffs’ characterization of its contents as true, at most might have served to corroborate the uncontradicted assertion that Morris frequently interviewed children. We therefore perceive no constitutional significance in the destruction of the 1984 calendar. The other item of evidence which Morris is alleged to have destroyed was a videotape of an interview with the two older Myers children taped at the St. Lawrence State Park Quarry Camp- grounds where various children indicated acts of abuse had oc- curred. There is a conflict in the record concerning whether the tape contained evidence favorable to the plaintiffs. However, the record contains four unrebutted affidavits that Morris had nothing to do with making or destroying the tape. Detective Pint’s affidavit asserts that on May 22, 1984, he deter- mined “without any instructions or requests from the county attor- ney’s office” to videotape an interview at the Quarry Campgrounds with the two children. He taped the interview in the presence of detective Busch, guardian ad litem Paul Thomsen and therapist Tom Price. When he determined that the audio and visual quality of the tape was too poor for subsequent use, he taped over it on May 29, 1984, in a subsequent visit to the campgrounds without the children. According to Pint, Morris “did not give [Pint] any instruc- tions concerning the preservation or erasure of the tape.” Nor to his knowledge did Morris ever see the tape. Detective Busch’s affidavit asserts that “Kathleen Morris did not, : ee a NE ee Oe rE ee ce F-27 to [Busch’s] knowledge, see the tape and, to [Busch’s] knowledge, did not order or request that it be erased.” Detective Einertson had general supervisory authority over detectives Pint, Busch and Morgan during the investigation. Einertson’s affidavit states that he never viewed the tape and that he “never received any requests for such a videotape from Kathleen Morris nor did he ever receive any instructions from her to destroy or erase such tapes as may have been made.” Morris states by affidavit that she “at no time viewed the videotape and did not advise or instruct anyone to erase or otherwise destroy its contents.” Plaintiffs point to no evidence at all to the contrary. At this stage in these proceedings we are searching for genuine issues of material fact. An unsupported allegation that Morris was responsible for the tape’s destruction may not proceed to trial on a record which contains no more than bare allegations that the four affiants testify- ing to ‘the contrary are lying. Because we find no constitutional significance in the destruction of the calendar and no support for Morris’ alleged involvement in the erasure of the videotape, we need not decide whether we agree with the Seventh Circuit that allega- tions of destruction of evidence by a prosecutor are barred by absolute immunity. See Heidelberg v. Hammer, 577 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 1978). Arrests R. Kathleen Morris had no direct role in procuring or executing arrest warrants or performing warrantless arrests. However, she did advise officer Norring and deputies Busch, Morgan and Pint that in her opinion facts related to her constituted probable cause to arrest and charge the plaintiffs. Her opinions in this respect certainly contributed causally to the plaintiffs’ arrests. We hold that in providing advice to law enforcement officials concerning the exist- ence of probable cause and the prospective legality of arrests, Morris was functioning in a quasi-judicial capacity as a prosecutor initiating the formal judicial process. Cf. Henderson v. Lopez, 790 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1986) (absolute immunity shields county attorney F-28 for function of advising county officials of the legality of detaining the plaintiff in jail). She therefore has ab*=*e immunity from suit for her performance of this function. Questioning Children All of the plaintiffs have sued R. Kathleen Morris for her role in questioning children. We conclude that she has absolute immunity for this function in the circumstances of these cases. Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424A U.S. at 431 n.33, recognized that in some circumstances, obtaining, reviewing and evaluating evi- dence may serve as a necessary and integral part of the quasi- judicial functions of initiating a prosecution or presenting the gov- ernment’s case. We recognize that the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initia- tion of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom. A prosecuting attorney is required constantly, in the course of his duty as such, to make decisions on a wide variety of sensitive issues. These include questions of whether to present a case to a grand jury, whether to file an information, whether and when to prosecute, whether to dismiss an indictment against particular defendants, which witnesses to call, and what other evidence to present. Preparation, both for the initiation of the criminal process and for a trial, may require the obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating of evidence. At some point, and with respect to some decisions, the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court. Drawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions, but this case does not require us to anticipate them. (Emphasis added.) At least six federal circuit courts have recognized that not all interrogation of witnesses or securing of evidence by other means is necessarily investigative “police work” when performed by a prose- cutor. Each of these courts has recognized circumstances in which a prosecutor’s fact-finding, interrogation or other evidence-gathering 4 ? , ; SSS ae Art Oi A MSE iad oar: Bob AAO oa Siena dnacd hata od te AR SN Aa ON aay Sonate ithe or abeths es ad ste ai See alt ana, F-29 function was so inherent in the decision whether to initiate a prosecution or in the preparation necessary to present a case that absolute immunity was appropriate for that function in those cir- cumstances. In Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981), a decision related to Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra, the Third Circuit considered evidence- gathering an advocatory rather than investigative or administrative function to the extent that securing additional information is essential to facili- tate the decision whether to initiate prosecution. We recognize that the decision of the Attorney General, or a prosecuting attorney, to initiate a prosecution is not made in a vacuum. On occasion, the securing of additional information may be necessary before an informed decision can be made. To grant a prosecuting attorney absolute immunity over his decision to initiate a prosecution while subjecting him to liability for securing the information necessary to make that decision would only foster uninformed decisionmaking and the potential for needless actions. We believe that the right to make the decision without being subject to suit must include some limited right to gather necessary information. At the same time, we are sensitive to the possibility that this narrow exception could be distorted to include all of a prosecutor’s investigative activities. We hold only that to the extent that the securing of information is necessary to a prosecutor’s decision to initiate a criminal prosecution, it is encompassed within the protected, quasi-judicial immunity afforded to the decision itself. Id. at 1215 (emphasis added).° 9The Third Circuit remanded the Forsyth case to the district court for the following determination:. {I]f the decision to authorize the wiretaps was made by the Attorney General in an attempt to secure information to determine whether to initiate a criminal prosecution, then he is entitled to absolute immunity from suit challenging that decision. Without a statement of the district court’s analysis, we are unable to determine whether the Attorney General’s conduct meets that test. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1216 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981). On remand, the Attorney General who had ordered the wiretaps expressly denied that the surveillance had been intended to facilitate an advoca- tory decision, as the Supreme Court noted in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2810 (1985). F-30 The plaintiffs’ grievance with respect to Morris’ role in question- ing children is that she allegedly used the interviews to coerce perjured statements from young and vulnerable witnesses. The Ninth, Second and Seventh Circuits have addressed similar claims concerning prosecutors who allegedly coerced or induced false testi- mony from witnesses, finding these allegations barred by absolute immunity. See, e.g., Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1127 (1985), concluding that when conferring with potential witnesses is for the purpose of deciding whether to file a charge, the interrogation function shares in the absolute prosecutorial immunity for initiating criminal proceedings. We think that conferring with potential witnesses for the purpose of determining whether to initiate proceedings is plainly a function “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” * * * and is therefore a quasi- judicial function “to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force.” Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). Accord Lee v. Willins, supra, 617 F.2d at 322, reasoning that the injuries which flow from coercion of false testimony, i.e., trial and imprisonment, are the same injuries which result from the decision to prosecute, and Jmbler v. Pach- tman absolutely shields a prosecutor from having to answer in damages for injuries flowing from the initiation of criminal pro- ceedings. See also Heidelberg v. Hammer, supra, S77 F.2d at 432 (“[C]harges that the prosecutors induced witnesses to commit per- jury are barred by the immunity doctrine.”). In addition, some investigative case preparation can be regarded as an integral component of case presentation. In Atkins v. Lan- ning, 556 F.2d 485 (lOth Cir. 1977), for example, a prosecutor was engaged in initiating criminal proceedings against a large group of drug distributors. As part of an ongoing investigation leading to the identification of additional participants in the scheme, “the district attorney unfortunately caught appellant in the general dragnet,” id. at 487. The Tenth Circuit decided that absolute immunity attended the prosecutor’s acts because the function being performed was “preparing and presenting a case,” id. at 488. Some leeway is needed to perform the function of assembling F-31 the state’s case. * * * While it is true that some investigative work is necessarily a prerequisite to the preparation of a prosecuting attorney’s case, this does not automatically change the nature of his function to resemble that of a police officer. Id. (citation omitted.) See also Demery v. Kupperman, supra, 735 F.2d at 1144, reasoning that “conferring with potential witnesses regarding their knowledge of underlying events is plainly part of a prosecutor’s preparation of his case” and therefore immune. Cf. Cook v. Houston Post, 616 F.2d 791, 793 (Sth Cir. 1980), with regard to a prosecutor interviewing witnesses before presenting their testimony to a grand jury: “Not all of an advocate’s work is done in the courtroom. For a lawyer to properly try a case, he must confer with witnesses, and conduct some of his own factual investigation.” In Morris’ circumstances, all functions of which the plaintiffs complain post-dated the filing of criminal charges against James Rud. It soon became clear that Rud had engaged in criminal activity with others, but the number of culpable persons was not known in the fall and winter of 1983-84. As known or suspected victims were interviewed, they described abuse by other adults and identified other child victims. Some of the information emerging from these interviews was already known to law enforcement personnel, and some was new. In part, because much of the sexual contact described by the children took the form of “games” involving groups of adults and children, new informa- tion was revealed along with merely corroborative material in vari- ous interviews. In our view, when a victim during questioning regarding a crime committed by one person indicates that others participated, the prosecutor’s role in determining the complicity of others is neces- sary to the function of deciding whether to initiate additional criminal proceedings. The prosecutor in the Scott County cases had an ongoing responsibility to evaluate whether probable cause ex- isted to charge additional persons with the abuse of previously identified victims (e.g., Browns, Bentzes, Myerses, Rawson, Lal- laks, Ranks, Buchans, Megers) as well as to determine whether cause existed to charge previously identified perpetrators with vic- F-32 timizing additional children (e.g., Rud, Bentzes, Lallaks). The plaintiffs’ connection with these cases grew out of the James Rud prosecution in the sense that nine of the plaintiffs, Tom and Helen Brown, Robert and Lois Bentz, Greg Myers, Daniel and Wanda Meger and Charles and Carol Lallak, were all incriminated by Rud victims (among others) in interviews after the initiation of criminal proceedings against James Rud. Coralene Rawson was implicated by her daughter who had by then been identified as a victim of Robert Rawson. Robert Rawson had previously been arrested as a participant in sexual activities involving James Rud. After the arrest of Greg Myers (largely on the testimony of a Rud victim), his children implicated Jane Myers, Duane and Dee Rank and Donald and Cindy Buchan and added additional incriminating information regarding Charles and Carol Lallak. Thus only the prosecution of Jane Myers, the Ranks, and the Buchans lacked a direct connection to conferences with victims of James Rud.'° In addition, by May 1984, Morris was preparing for trials ex- pected to begin in the summer of 1984. She engaged in court preparation sessions involving the review of witnesses’ statements and the introduction of various prospective witnesses to the court- room setting. From a chronological viewpoint, there was no point between the arrest and filing of charges against James Rud in September 1983 and the dismissal of charges against the other \0The impression created by the pleadings is that the goal of the investigation was to induce children to incriminate their own parents. However, with the exception of Jane Myers, Coralene Rawson and the Buchans, the plaintiffs were not arrested on the basis of any information obtained from their own children. The interviews in which the Myers children and S. Rawson implicated their mothers occurred well after the arrests of their fathers. (The Myers children were not interviewed at all until after their father’s arrest.) M. Buchan was questioned by [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2250%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.