FADWA SAFAR;JAN ESHOW v. LISA TINGLE
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wilkinson, June 7, 2017,
Qualified Immunity- A police officer’s failure to try to recall an arrest warrant once she found out that no crime had actually been committed did not subject her to federal liability.

(Concur- Floyd- The officer was required to try to have the warrant recalled)

Facts:
In 2012, Safar and Eshow got a refund at Costco for flooring that they had purchased in Virginia. A few hours later, Costco called the Arlington police to report (incorrectly) that Safar and Eshow fraudulently obtained the refund. An Arlington PD officer reviewed the video of the refund and filed an affidavit requesting arrest warrants for both.
The next day, Costco contacted the officer and informed her that they were mistaken and that no fraud had occurred. However, the officer made no attempt to correct the affidavit or withdraw the warrant.
Eight months later, Eshow was pulled over for speeding and was arrested in front of his family. When the case came to court, a Costco representative explained that there had been a mistake and the case was dismissed.
Though both the officer and the prosecutor were aware that charges were still pending against Safar, no attempt was made to withdraw her arrest warrant.
The next year, Safar went to a police station to get a clearance letter and was arrested for the open warrant.
Safar was held in jail for three days over the Christmas holiday (courts were closed). Her case was then dismissed.
Eshow and Safar filed suit against the officer as well as the prosecutor under both federal and state law.
The district court granted immunity to the officer and the prosecutor.
Eshow and Safar appealed, arguing that

Held: The Fourth Circuit disagreed. There is no “clearly established” Fourth Amendment requirement for an officer to try to recall an arrest warrant once they find out there has been a mistake. However, only the federal claims were barred. The plaintiffs were free to go back to state court and file suit there under state claims.

Qualified Immunity – Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for “bad guesses in gray areas.”

Qualified Immunity- A government official is not covered for violations of “clearly established” law, however.

Absolute Immunity- Unlike a police officer, a prosecutor conducting “prosecutorial activities that are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process’ are absolutely immune from civil suit.”

Absolute Immunity- However, “absolute immunity may not attach when a prosecutor is acting as an ‘administrator and investigative officer’ rather than as ‘an officer of the court.'”

Prosecutor Immunity- a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity when providing advice to police during a criminal investigation or when “acting as a complaining witness rather than a lawyer” in support of a warrant application

Prosecutor Immunity- However, a prosecutor does have absolute immunity when they appear in court “to present evidence in support of a search warrant” or decide to “seek an arrest warrant based on an evaluation of probable cause.”

Prosecutor Immunity- A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for failing to withdraw an arrest warrant even after learning that no crime has been committed