Burns v. Reed
| Burns v. Reed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Argued November 28, 1990 Decided May 30, 1991 | |||||||
| Full case name | Cathy Burns, Petitioner v. Rick Reed | ||||||
| Citations |
111 S. Ct. 1934; 114 L. Ed. 2d 547; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3018; 59 U.S.L.W. 4536; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3961; 91 Daily Journal DAR 6290 | ||||||
| Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter | ||||||
| Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by Blackmun; Marshall (part III) | ||||||
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case. A prosecutor was absolutely immune from damages based upon positions taken in a probable cause hearing for a search warrant. The same prosecutor was not held entitled to immunity for giving legal advice to the police about the legality of an investigative practice.[1]
| Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
References
External Links
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 02, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.
