The Supreme Court today rejected a "complaining witness exception" to
absolute immunity in § 1983 cases for testimony. The case is Rehberg v. Paulk.
The holding extends trial witness immunity to grand jury testimony of the
police investigator, adding to the previous immunity for preliminary
hearing witnesses. The testimonial immunity extends to related conspiracy claims
that depend on that testimony.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-788.pdf
Therefore, caseworkers cannot be sued for false testimony.
There is some hope for liability for false statements by caseworkers that
are non-testimonial. Rehburg expressly preserves qualified immunity for a
false warrant affidavit, which is analogous to a CPS request for a removal
order. Also, if a CPS caseworker can fit the Court's definition of a true
complaining witness--a person who initiates the proceeding--perhaps the
worker has only qualified immunity for a false initial complaint. See footnote
1 and part IVA. That depends on whether courts will treat the CPS
investigator-complainant more like a prosecutor (absolute immunity) or a police
officer (qualified immunity).
Elizabeth Warner, Attorney
Jackson, Michigan
(517) 788-6004
eswarner@aol.com
Web site: www.eswarnerlaw.com
What could possibly be wrong with this? I am virtually HEARING the Swastikas clanking.
No comments:
Post a Comment