Ruling Focuses On Dual Role Of Prosecutors -- If They Act As Investigators, They Have Limited Immunity

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng hints he will consider changing how his office reviews criminal cases after the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday soundly rejected his argument that prosecutors deserve immunity from all lawsuits.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court refused to block a civil-rights lawsuit filed against Deputy Prosecutor Lynne Kalina by Rodney Fletcher, an Auburn carpenter who was accused of stealing computer equipment from a school in 1993.

"She doesn't seem to be one of these rogue prosecutors who is out there throwing people into jail willy-nilly," said Brady Johnson, an attorney for Fletcher. "Although she did do that in this case."

Kalina had signed a court document - an affidavit in support of obtaining an arrest warrant - that contained information later determined to be wrong.

"We continue to believe that our procedure for obtaining arrest warrants makes sense," Maleng said in a prepared statement, "but in light of this decision, it will be necessary to review our process."

Maleng conceded that his staff would no longer be able to rely on absolute immunity when they sign affidavits that judges review to issue arrest and search warrants.

"I imagine a lot more people have been incarcerated because of false statements. I hope it doesn't happen from now on," Fletcher said yesterday. "The whole thing was pretty lame on everyone's part. We had paperwork that showed there were lies and they pursued this

anyhow."

Attorney Timothy Ford, who presented Fletcher's case before the Supreme Court, said the suit against Kalina, on hold in U.S. District Court pending yesterday's ruling, can now proceed.

The decision focused on the dual role prosecutors play in the state of Washington - both as investigators and as advocates for the state.

As investigators, prosecutors act much like police officers and have limited immunity. As an advocate for the state, they have absolute immunity, which protects them from lawsuits.

Maleng said Kalina deserved full immunity because she was acting as a state advocate when signing an affidavit for a search warrant.

King County and the majority of the 38 other counties in this state have followed a practice in which deputy prosecutors review police reports, then summarize the facts in an affidavit, which is used by judges to find probable cause and to issue arrest warrants.

Such a process, Maleng said, is intended to subject criminal cases to a "professional evaluation" by a deputy prosecutor before an arrest warrant is sought. In some counties, the same work is completed by police. Snohomish County Prosecutor James Krider, who uses the same system as King County, said he fears the ruling would burden law-enforcement agencies with more work.

But the ruling drew praise from defense attorneys locally and nationwide. "This was a citizen in our community who was just horribly abused by the system," said attorney Irwin Schwartz. "This is a remarkable, common-sense decision."

Maleng expressed disappointment with the decision and continued to defend Kalina's actions.

"We believe the deputy prosecutor acted in good faith in the performance of her duties and that the doctrine of qualified immunity will apply," Maleng said.

The case began five years ago when Fletcher's fingerprints were found at Our Lady of Guadalupe School in West Seattle, where a computer had been stolen.

Seattle Police forwarded the case against Fletcher to Kalina, who secured an arrest warrant from a judge. To obtain the warrant, Kalina signed a document certifying that the fingerprints had been found, that Fletcher had no known reason to be at the school and that he had been identified trying to pawn the computer.

When Fletcher was arrested 10 months later, prosecutors learned he'd been at the school to install some glass and that he had not been the person attempting to sell a computer at a pawn shop.

It is not clear how the mistake occurred.