NCJ Number
110706
Journal
Arizona Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 2 Dated: (1987) Pages: 333-341
Date Published
1987
Length
9 pages
Annotation
In Malley v. Briggs (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a police officer who presents a judicial officer with a complaint and supporting affidavit that fail to establish probable cause cannot avoid liability under 42 U.S. Code section 1983 for the resulting unconstitutional arrest.
Abstract
In reaching this decision, the Court applied the test specified in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). The Harlow standard states that government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages only when the official's conduct does not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' The Court's goal in 'Harlow' was to resolve many insubstantial claims against government officials by doing away with the subjective good faith element and relying on the 'objective reasonableness' of the official's conduct measured by reference to established law. The Malley ruling states that 'only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, will the shield of immunity be lost.' This indicates the Court does not require superior knowledge of the law but requires a standard of professional knowledge to which an officer can realistically adhere. 69 footnotes.