Abstract

Comment: Civil Rights
In recent years the United States Supreme Court has modified the qualified immunity defense for government officials. In an attempt to fashion a more defined and useful standard, the Court instituted a strictly objective test. In Malley v. Briggs, the standard was applied to police officers.

The Court in Malley 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.C. section 1983 for the resulting unconstitutional arrest. In reaching this decision, the Court applied the test set out in Harlow v. Fitzgerald. 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 goal of the Court 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 which is measured by reference to clearly established law.

This Comment examines the reasoning of Malley v. Briggs and analyzes the application of the Harlow standard to probable cause cases. It will also assess Malley's potential impact on the scope of police liability under section 1983.

How to Cite