Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

A U.S. Supreme Court case earlier this year, Rehberg v. Paulk, extended the immunity given to witnesses against liability for testimony given at trial to witnesses testifying before a grand jury. Rehberg v. Paulk additionally held that there is no difference between a law enforcement officer and a civilian witness for purposes of this immunity. In practice this means that an individual cannot sue a law enforcement officer for their grand jury testimony even if the officer lied or the testimony was malicious.

Rehberg v. Paulk involved a 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 action against a district attorney's chief investigator. The investigator testified before a grand jury in three separate indictments against the petitioner, all of which were subsequently dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The petitioner then filed a § 1983 claim charging the investigator with presenting false testimony to a grand jury and conspiracy to present false testimony to a grand jury.

42 U.S.C.§ 1983 actions entail violations of an individual's constitutional rights, immunities, and privileges by persons acting "under color of state law." §1983 allows an individual to sue any government official who uses his or her position to deprive that individual of constitutional or legal rights. However, certain government officials are immune from §1983 actions when performing duties within the scope of their authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that some functions carried out by government officials require absolute immunity from the threat of civil liability to ensure that those functions and duties are performed independently and objectively. The Court has recognized this absolute immunity for actions by government officials within the scope of their authority, including legislators, judges, prosecutors, and witnesses testifying at trial.

Witnesses testifying at a trial have long enjoyed absolute immunity from slander, libel and any other claims based on their testimony, even when their testimony was malicious and/or false. The Court reasoned that without this absolute immunity, witnesses would not be inclined to tell the truth for fear of subsequent civil claims against them. The Court also reasoned that this immunity would not make witnesses more likely to lie while on the witness stand because the possibility of criminal perjury charges acts as a significant deterrent.

In extending this immunity to grand jury witnesses, the Court stated that the same factors that justify immunity for trial witnesses apply to grand jury witnesses. Moreover, allowing § 1983 actions against grand jury witnesses would compromise the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, which is vital to their proper functioning.

The Court also held that there was no reason to distinguish law enforcement witnesses from lay witnesses, because if anything, the court reasoned that law enforcement officials face more severe sanctions for perjury than do lay witnesses. Sanctions can include the loss of employment and other employment -related penalties. Additionally, since prosecutors are immune from §1983 actions, it would be inconsistent to allow suits against law enforcement grand jury witnesses for malicious prosecution, because it is the prosecutor and not the officer who makes the decision on whether or not to prosecute.

In the end, the Court held that the absolute immunity granted to trial witnesses extends to grand jury witnesses, even if the grand jury witness is a law enforcement officer, and even if the officer lied under oath.

Related Reading:
Defendant's Rights to Present Evidence at Grand Jury Extremely Limited
Grand Jury Investigations: Ham Sandwiches Beware!
Felony Criminal Process: Pre-Indictment

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 10 of the New Mexico State Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches by government official and require that a judge issue a search warrant authorizing the specific location and/or object to be searched. A warrantless search, therefore, is presumed to be unreasonable unless one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is established. One such recognized exception is consent.

In order to establish consent, the prosecution must prove that "under the totality of the circumstances" the consent given to search the location was voluntary and not "a product of duress, coercion or other vitiating factors." Whether someone has consented to a search is an issue that must be determined on a case by case basis and is highly dependent on the specific facts of each case.

When reviewing the totality of the circumstances the court must consider 1) the individual characteristics of the person giving consent, 2) the circumstances under which the person was detained, and 3) the manner in which the police requested the search. The ultimate determination is whether the person consented against their will.

New Mexico courts have already determined that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise a person of his or her right to refuse to consent to a search in order to obtain a valid consent when consent is sought to search a person's home. In State of New Mexico v. Carlos A., the New Mexico Court of Appeals extended this principle to a police officer requesting consent to search a vehicle. The court stated that such an extension was reasonable since a vehicle does not carry the same heightened expectation of privacy as one's home does. Whether a person is aware of the fact that they may refuse to give consent to the requested search is just one factor to be considered in determining the voluntariness of the consent.

The Carlos A. case is of particular significance because it deals with a minor's consent to search his vehicle. Carlos argued that as a minor he should be entitled to broader protection than an adult when asked to consent to a search. The Court rejected the defense counsel's arguments and concluded that the officer was not required to advise Carlos of his right to refuse consent to the search simply because he was a minor.

Ultimately, the Court determined that Carlos' consent was voluntary. Specifically, in reviewing the totality of the circumstances the court noted that the contact between the officer and Carlos occurred quickly and in a public place, the contact was not hostile, and the officer did not exert any undue pressure on Carlos to convince him to consent to the search. Furthermore, Carlos was 17 years old. Only one year away from being an adult. In light of these facts there is no evidence that Carlos consented to the search of his vehicle against his will.

In remains to be seen how the court would rule on these same issues in the case of younger children. However, the same arguments would certainly be a stretch in cases of less mature children. If your child is facing juvenile criminal charges and there is a question as to the legality of a search, it is advisable to immediately consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Related Reading:
Do Minors Have Broader Rights Under the 4th Amendment Than Adults?
Second Chance for First Time Juvenile Criminal Offenders

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys