No. _______
In The

Supreme Court of the United States
-------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------

EDWARD MICHAEL NERO, GARRETT
EDWARD MILLER, BRIAN SCOTT RICE,
ALICIA WHITE, AND WILLIAM PORTER,
Petitioners,
v.

MARILYN MOSBY,
Respondent.
-------------------------- ♦ --------------------------

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
-------------------------- ♦ --------------------------

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
-------------------------- ♦ --------------------------

Catherine Flynn
Counsel of Record
THE LAW FIRM OF CATHERINE FLYNN
217 North Charles Street, 2nd Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 286-1440
cflynn@catflynnlaw.com
Counsel for Petitioners

Dated: October 4, 2018

THE LEX GROUPDC i 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. i Suite 500, #5190 i Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-0001 i (800) 856-4419 i www.thelexgroup.com

 i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Whether a prosecutor is acting as an “advocate”
and is entitled to absolute immunity when the
prosecutor performs an investigation and provides
those investigatory materials to a law enforcement
officer.
Whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute
immunity when the prosecutor provides legal advice,
including legal advice as to the existence of probable
cause, to a law enforcement officer.

 ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners Edward Michael Nero, Garrett
Edward Miller, Brian Scott Rice, Alicia White and
William Porter were the plaintiffs in the district court
and appellees in the Fourth Circuit.
Respondent Marilyn Mosby was a defendant in
the district court and the appellant in the Fourth
Circuit.

 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v
OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1
JURISDICTION ......................................................... 1
CONSTITUTIONAL
AND
STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED......................................... 1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ......................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 3
1.

The Arrest And Transport Of Mr. Gray ........ 3

2.

Freddie Gray’s Death..................................... 8

3.

The Investigation And Charges .................... 8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 11
I.

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT OPINION IS
ERRONEOUS BECAUSE MS. MOSBY
DID NOT ACT AS A PROSECUTOR
WHEN
UNDERTAKING
AN
INVESTIGATION AND PROVIDING
HER INVESTIGATORY MATERIALS
TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ..... 11

 iv
II.

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MISTAKENLY
APPLIED KALINA V. FLETCHER,
522 U.S. 118, 129 (1997) TO A
PROSECUTOR
GIVING
LEGAL
ADVICE TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER ..................................................... 15

III. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S HOLDING
THAT A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED
TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WHEN
GIVING LEGAL ADVICE TO AN
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER
CONFLICTS
WITH
NUMEROUS
OTHER CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS ..... 17
CONCLUSION ......................................................... 18
APPENDIX:
Published Opinion and Judgment of
The United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
entered May 7, 2018 ............................ 1a
Corrected Memorandum and Order of
The United States District Court
For the District of Maryland
Re: Dismissal Motions
entered January 27, 2017 ................. 47a

 v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons,
509 U.S. 259 ................................. 11, 12, 13, 14
Burns v. Reed,
500 U.S. 478, 111 S. Ct. 1934 (1991) ..... passim
Ewing v. City of Stockton,
588 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................ 18
Forrester v. White,
484 U.S. 219, 108 S. Ct. 538 (1988) ............... 11
Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982) ............. 12
Holden v. Sticher,
427 Fed. Appx. 749 (11th Cir. 2011) ............. 18
Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 96 S. Ct. 984 (1976) ..... 11, 12, 15
Kalina v. Fletcher,
522 U.S. 118 (1997) ............................ 15, 16, 17
Loupe v. O’Bannon,
824 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2016) .......................... 18
Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 106 S. Ct. 1092 (1986) ............. 12
Prince v. Hicks,
198 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 1999) .......................... 18

 vi
Spiess v. Pocono Mountain Reg’l Police Dept.,
580 Fed. Appx. 116 (3d Cir. 2014) ................. 18
Springmen v. Williams,
122 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 1997) .......................... 17
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................... 1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..................................................... 2, 3
Baltimore City Code Art. 19, § 59-22 ................. 4, 8, 9

 1
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the Fourth Circuit is reported at
890 F.2d 106 (4th Cir. 2018) and reproduced at
Petition Appendix (“Pet. App.”) 1a. The district
court’s order granting in part, and denying in part,
Mosby’s motion to dismiss is reported at 233 F. Supp.
3d 463 (D. Md. 2017) and is reproduced at Pet. App.
45a.
JURISDICTION
The Fourth Circuit issued its opinion on May 7,
2018. On July 31, Chief Justice Roberts extended the
time for filing a petition for certiorari to and including
October 4, 2018. This Court has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1254(1).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except
that in any action brought against a
judicial officer for an act or omission
taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,

 2
injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated
or declaratory relief was unavailable.
For the purposes of this section, any Act
of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia shall be considered
to be a statute of the District of
Columbia.
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Petitioners are Baltimore City Police
Department officers, who were involved in varying
degrees in the April 12, 2015 arrest and
transportation of Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr. (“Mr.
Gray”). Mr. Gray was injured while in transit to the
Baltimore City Police Department’s Western District.
Mr. Gray died on April 19, 2015.
Following Mr. Gray’s death, the Baltimore City
State’s Attorney, Marilyn Mosby (“Ms. Mosby”) led an
independent investigation into the cause of Mr.
Gray’s death conducted by the Baltimore City State’s
Attorney’s Office (“SAO”) police integrity unit. On
May 1, 2015, the SAO provided incomplete and
misleading information to a Baltimore City Deputy
Sheriff, Major Samuel Cogen (“Major Cogen”), who
filed applications for charges that led to the
Petitioners’ arrests. Ms. Mosby also held a press
conference on May 1, 2015 that contained false and
defamatory statements.
After each of the criminal proceedings resulted
in either acquittals or requests for nolle prosequis in

 3
favor the each of the Petitioners, the Petitioners
brought actions in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland (the “District Court”)
against Ms. Mosby and Major Cogen, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the Maryland state constitution and
common law. Ms. Mosby and Major Cogen moved to
dismiss the actions, which had been consolidated by
the District Court. The District Court denied, in part,
Ms. Mosby and Major Cogen’s motions to dismiss, and
rejected Ms. Mosby’s efforts to assert absolute
prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. Ms.
Mosby appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Major Cogen
did not appeal.
The Fourth Circuit reversed and dismissed all
of the Petitioners’ claims against Ms. Mosby, holding
that Ms. Mosby was entitled to absolute prosecutorial
immunity. Because the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor
of Ms. Mosby on prosecutorial immunity, the Fourth
Circuit did not address the question of qualified
immunity.
INTRODUCTION
1.

The Arrest And Transport Of Mr. Gray.

On the morning of April 12, 2015, Baltimore
City Police Officers Edward Nero (“Nero”), Garrett
Miller (“Miller”) and Lieutenant Brian Rice (“Lt.
Rice”) were on bicycle patrol on North Avenue.
Fourth Circuit Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 211 (¶13). Lt.
Rice was ahead of Nero and Miller on his bicycle when
he began pursuing two suspects and announced the
pursuit over his police radio. J.A. 211 (¶14-15). Nero
and Miller responded. J.A. 211 (¶16). Officer Miller
apprehended one of the suspects, Freddie Carlos

 4
Gray, Jr. (“Mr. Gray”). J.A. 211 (¶18). Prior to joining
the Baltimore City Police Department, Officer Nero
was an Emergency Medical Technician in New
Jersey. J.A. 211-212 (¶20). Given his medical
training, Officer Nero monitored Mr. Gray during the
encounter and did not observe Mr. Gray exhibiting
symptoms of a medical emergency at any time during
his interaction with Mr. Gray. J.A. 211-212 (¶20).
After detaining and handcuffing Mr. Gray “for
officer safety reasons,” Miller found “a spring-assisted
knife” on Mr. Gray’s person. J.A. 212 (¶21). This knife
was illegal under Article 19, Section 59-22 of the
Baltimore City Code, which states “[i]t shall be
unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any
knife with an automatic spring or other device for
opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as
a switch-blade knife.” J.A. 212 (¶22). Miller arrested
Mr. Gray for possession of the knife. J.A. 212 (¶22).
During his arrest, Mr. Gray “became physically
and verbally combative,” causing a crowd to form
around the Officers and Mr. Gray. J.A. 212 (¶22). A
police wagon was summoned and arrived driven by
Officer Caesar Goodson (“Goodson”). J.A. 35. Mr.
Gray refused to walk to the police wagon. J.A. 212
(¶23). Therefore, Nero and another Officer carried Mr.
Gray to the wagon. J.A. 212 (¶24).
Mr. Gray stood on the back step of the wagon
as Nero conducted a second search for weapons and
then was placed inside the wagon. J.A. 167 (¶21).
During this search, Mr. Gray was standing under his
own power. J.A. 167 (¶21).

 5
Once Mr. Gray was fully inside the police
wagon, he began banging and slamming himself
against the inside of the wagon causing the wagon to
visibly shake. J.A. 213 (¶27). Due to Mr. Gray’s
continuous screaming and yelling, a larger crowd of
citizens had formed around Nero, Miller and the other
officers. J.A. 213 (¶28). In the interest of officer
safety, Lt. Rice directed Officer Miller to tell the police
wagon driver to take the wagon approximately one
block south in order to complete the paperwork for
Mr. Gray’s arrest and then to proceed directly to
Baltimore City’s Central Booking Intake Center. J.A.
213 (¶28). During this time, Mr. Gray continued to be
uncooperative. J.A. 213 (¶30). Mr. Gray was alert and
responsive and continued to yell and scream. J.A. 213
(¶30). Another crowd of citizens began to crowd
around the police wagon. J.A. 213 (¶30). The citizens
were yelling and shouting at the officers. J.A. 213
(¶30). At this stop, Miller and Rice removed Mr. Gray
from the wagon, switched his handcuffs for flex cuffs,
and placed leg shackles on Mr. Gray because he was
“thrashing” around the wagon. J.A. 213 (¶29). Once
Mr. Gray had been placed in leg shackles and flex
cuffs, he was placed back into the wagon. J.A. 213
(¶31). At this time, he continued to bang the inside of
the wagon, causing the wagon to violently shake back
and forth. J.A. 213 (¶31). After completing the arrest
paperwork for Mr. Gray, Officers Nero and Miller
returned to their assigned patrol duties. J.A. 213
(¶32).
Goodson made a second stop near Baker and
Mount Streets. J.A. 171 (¶49). After hearing radio
communication indicating a request for an additional
unit at that location, Officer William Porter (“Porter”)
pulled his patrol vehicle within approximately 20 feet

 6
of the location of the wagon. J.A. 171 (¶49). At that
location, Officer Porter observed more loud and
continuous interjecting by neighborhood residents.
J.A. 171 (¶50). At that time, Officer Porter observed
the arrested individual banging and slamming
himself against the inside of the wagon. J.A. 171
(¶51). At this time, Officer Porter was advised that
the individual inside the transport wagon was Mr.
Gray. J.A. 171 (¶51). The transport wagon left the
area. J.A. 171 (¶51).
Goodson stopped at the intersection of Druid
Hill Avenue and Dolphin Street. J.A. 171-172 (¶52).
Goodson requested an additional officer to respond to
the area. J.A. 172 (¶52). Officer Porter responded and
observed Mr. Gray lying prone on the floor of the
vehicle. J.A. 172 (¶55). Mr. Gray asked Porter for
“help.” J.A. 172 (¶56). Porter asked Mr. Gray, “what
do you mean help?” and Mr. Gray asked for help in
getting off the floor. J.A. 172 (¶56). Porter raised Mr.
Gray by his arms to a sitting position on the bench.
J.A. 172 (¶56). Porter could not fit in the wagon
compartment while Mr. Gray was inside. J.A. 172
(¶56). Mr. Gray did not appear to need medical
assistance, but Porter asked him if he wanted medical
help. J.A. 172-173 (¶57). Mr. Gray replied that he did,
and Porter advised Goodson to take Mr. Gray to the
hospital. J.A. 173 (¶¶57-58). Porter “observed no
exigent medical need, and observed Mr. Gray to be
able to sit upright, breathe and communicate.” J.A.
173 (¶¶57-58). Porter knew that “many detainees are
trying to avoid being transported to the detention
facility” by requesting medical assistance. J.A. 173
(¶¶57-58).

 7
Subsequently, Nero and Miller arrested a
second man and called for a police wagon to respond
to their current location. J.A. 213 (¶¶32-33). The
police wagon still containing Mr. Gray responded to
the scene on North Avenue to collect the second
arrestee. J.A. 213 (¶33). There was a call for backup, to which Porter and Officer Alicia White (“White”)
responded separately. J.A. 168 (¶31); J.A. 173 (¶60).
When Porter arrived, he observed Mr. Gray kneeling
on the vehicle floor and leaning against the bench.
J.A. 173 (¶61). Porter spoke to Mr. Gray and
confirmed that Mr. Gray still wanted to go to the
hospital. J.A. 173 (¶61). Porter told this to another
officer at the scene. J.A. 173 (¶61). When White
arrived, she approached Mr. Gray in the wagon and
attempted to speak with him. J.A. 169 (¶35). She saw
him breathing and heard him making noises, but Mr.
Gray would not answer her, which White concluded
was a sign of his non-compliant behavior. J.A. 169
(¶35). White states that Mr. Gray did not appear to be
in medical distress. J.A. 169 (¶35). No one told her
that a medic was needed. J.A. 169 (¶37). Both White
and Porter left to go to the Western District station.
J.A. 169 (¶39); J.A. 174 (¶63). At this point, the second
arrestee was placed into the wagon. J.A. 45-46. The
wagon then departed North Avenue. J.A. 45-46.
Upon departing North Avenue, Rice, Nero, and Miller
had no further interactions with Mr. Gray. J.A. 214
(¶35); J.A. 217 (¶57); J.A. 243 (¶26).
The police wagon arrived at the Western
District Station with Mr. Gray inside. J.A. 174 (¶¶6263). When Porter reached the station and approached
the wagon, he saw that Mr. Gray was unresponsive.
J.A. 174 (¶63). Porter tapped Mr. Gray, but Mr. Gray
did not respond. J.A. 174 (¶64). Another officer began

 8
emergency aid while Porter called a medic. J.A. 174
(¶64). When White arrived at the station, she saw
officers removing Mr. Gray from the wagon and was
told, for the first time, to call a medic. J.A. 169 (¶¶3940). Another officer told White a medic had already
been called, but White called to confirm it was en
route. J.A. 169 (¶41).
2.

Freddie Gray’s Death

A medical unit took Mr. Gray from the Western
District Station to the University of Maryland Shock
Trauma Unit where he underwent surgery. J.A. 174
(¶¶66-67). On April 19, 2015, Mr. Gray died from a
spinal cord injury. J.A. 174 (¶67).
3.

The Investigation And Charges

Following Mr. Gray’s death, Ms. Mosby led an
independent investigation into the cause of Mr.
Gray’s death conducted by the State’s Attorney’s
Office (“SAO”) police integrity unit. J.A. 176 (¶78);
J.A. 180 (¶88).
The investigatory materials that Ms. Mosby
provided to Major Cogen for review were false,
misleading, and incomplete.
Ms. Mosby stated that the knife recovered from
Mr. Gray was “not a switchblade; and [was] lawful
under Maryland law.” J.A. 175 (¶75). This
information was misleading because, regardless of
whether the knife was, or was not legal, under
Maryland law, the knife recovered from Mr. Gray was
spring-assisted and was, therefore, illegal under
Article 19, Section 59-22 of the Baltimore City Code.

 9
J.A. 175 (¶75). Ms. Mosby had served as an Assistant
State’s Attorney for Baltimore City from 2005-2012
and knew that spring-assisted knives were illegal in
Baltimore City. J.A. 175 (¶75). The Baltimore City
Police Department also informed Ms. Mosby that the
knife was illegal, and Ms. Mosby knew that the SAO
“had several cases pending against persons charged
under Article 19, Section 59-22 of the Baltimore City
Code for possession of spring-assisted knives.” J.A.
219 (¶¶69-70). As part of her investigation, Ms. Mosby
also would have been aware that, on April 12, 2015,
Mr. Gray had been charged, after a finding of
probable cause by a local magistrate, with possession
of a switchblade knife. See J.A. 219. None of this
investigatory information was provided to Major
Cogen.
Ms. Mosby also provided other erroneous,
misleading or incomplete information to Major Cogen
-- including that the Officers observed Mr. Gray
unresponsive on the floor of the wagon -- which was
not true. Indeed, Ms. Mosby omitted that the Officers
specifically stated that they did not observe that Mr.
Gray was in any distress (until the final stop at the
Western District); that, when Mr. Gray did not
respond, [White] did nothing further despite the fact
that she was advised that he needed a medic”; and
that, despite Mr. Gray’s seriously deteriorating
medical condition, no medical assistance was
rendered or summoned for Mr. Gray. This
information was incorrect; however, since there was
no evidence that Mr. Gray was in medical distress at
any point or that any Officer had any further
interaction with Mr. Gray until Officer White called
for medical assistance at the van’s final stop. J.A. 179189 (¶87).

 10
The information provided to Major Cogen also
omitted that a first-hand witness, Donta Allen, who
was in the van with Freddie Gray, noted that not only
was Freddie Gray conscious during much of the ride,
but was banging his head against the wall, indicating
that he was not in a serious state for much of the ride.
J.A. 180 (¶89). Ms. Mosby omitted that another
witness, Mark Gladhill, saw Mr. Gray in the van and
observed that he was in a “praying position,” not that
he was in any medical distress. J.A. 180 (¶90). Ms.
Mosby omitted that the medics who came onto the
scene and examined Mr. Gray after White called them
not once, but twice determined that Mr. Gray’s neck
was “Normal” and that other “significant physical
exam findings” stated that “client was arrested for
suspected drug possession so possible drug ingestion
or overdose was treated as well as trauma etiology.”
J.A. 180 (¶91). Indeed, Ms. Mosby withheld that not
even the medical professionals that arrived on the
scene were able to determine that Mr. Gray had
suffered any serious physical trauma. J.A. 181 (¶92).
Ms. Mosby also provided erroneous legal advice
to Major Cogen that the initial arrest of Mr. Gray was
unlawful and without probable cause and that the
Officers were under a legal duty to restrain Mr. Gray
in a seatbelt.
On May 1, 2015, charges were filed against the
Officers and the driver, Goodson, pursuant to an
Application for Statement of Charges submitted by
Major Samuel Cogen. J.A. 174 (¶68); J.A. 217 (¶61);
J.A. 244 (¶68).
On May 1, 2015, Ms. Mosby also held a press
conference regarding the charges against the Officers.

 11
Criminal proceedings against each of the
Officers resulted in either acquittals or requests for
nolle prosequis.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
I.

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT OPINION IS
ERRONEOUS BECAUSE MS. MOSBY DID
NOT ACT AS A PROSECUTOR WHEN
UNDERTAKING AN INVESTIGATION
AND PROVIDING HER INVESTIGATORY
MATERIALS TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER

This Court held in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509
U.S. 259 (1993) that “[i]n determining whether
particular actions of government officials fit within a
common-law tradition of absolute immunity, or only
the more general standard of qualified immunity, we
have applied a ‘functional approach,’ see, e.g., Burns
[v. Reed], 500 U.S. [478] at 486, 111 S. Ct. 1934 at
1939 [(1991)], which looks to ‘the nature of the
function performed, not the identity of the actor who
performed it,’ Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. [219] at
229, 108 S. Ct. [538] at 545 [(1988)].” Buckley, 509
U.S. at 269.
Prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity
when acting in an investigatory capacity as this Court
noted in Buckley:
[A]s the function test of Imbler [v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S. Ct. 984,
47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)] recognizes, the
actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely
immune merely because they are

 12
performed by a prosecutor. Qualified
immunity “‘represents the norm’” for
executive officers, Malley v. Briggs, 475
U.S. [335], at 340, 106 S. Ct. [1092] at
1095 [(1986)], quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. [800] at 807, 102
S. Ct. [2727], at 2732 [(1982)], so when
a
prosecutor
“functions
as
an
administrator rather than as an officer
of the court” he is entitled only to
qualified immunity. Imbler, 424 U.S., at
431, n. 33, 96 S. Ct. at 995, n. 33. There
is a difference between the advocate’s
role in evaluating evidence and
interviewing witnesses as he prepares
for trial, on the one hand, and the
detective’s role in searching for the clues
and corroboration that might give him
probable cause to recommend that a
suspect be arrested, on the other hand.
When a prosecutor performs the
investigative
functions
normally
performed by a detective or police officer,
it is “neither appropriate nor justifiable
that, for the same act, immunity should
protect the one and not the other.”
Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. Accordingly, “[a] prosecutor
neither is, nor should consider himself to be, an
advocate before he has probable cause to have anyone
arrested.” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 274. The Fourth
Circuit erroneously applied absolute immunity to Ms.
Mosby’s actions even while conceding that Ms. Mosby
“apparently began investigating before she had
probable cause.” Pet. App. at 17a.

 13
Ms. Mosby and her office undertook an
independent investigation, separate from the police
investigation. J.A. 177.
Over the course of our independent
investigation, in the untimely death of
Mr. Gray, my team worked around the
clock: 12 and 14 hour days to canvass
and interview dozens of witnesses: view
numerous hours of video taped
statements:
surveyed
the
route:
reviewed voluminous medical records;
and we leveraged the information made
available to us by the police department,
the community, and the family of Mr.
Gray.
J.A. 177 (¶81a). Ms. Mosby stated that she “sent [her]
investigator out to the scene” and “have a working
collaboration and are working with the Baltimore
Sheriff’s Department, who has police powers and,
again independent from the Baltimore City Police
Department.” J.A. 178 (¶81i). Like the Baltimore
City Police Department, Ms. Mosby “put all of [the
State’s Attorney’s Office’s] resources to make sure
that we were pursuing where the facts took us in this
case.” J.A. 178 (¶ 81f) (emphasis added).
In conducting an investigation and relaying
that investigation (however incomplete and
misleading) to Major Cogen, Ms. Mosby was not
acting in the role of an advocate, but was
“perform[ing] the investigative functions normally
performed by a detective or police officer.” Buckley,
509 U.S. at 273.

 14
The Fourth Circuit erred in not applying the
Court’s decision in Buckley to Ms. Mosby’s
investigation and to her providing her investigatory
materials to Major Cogen. The Fourth Circuit
contends that “[t]o the extent the Officers ask us to
create a new rule that participation in an
investigation deprives a prosecutor’s subsequent acts
of absolute immunity, we balk at the proposition.”
Pet. App. 17a. That statement, however,
misunderstands the Petitioners’ argument.
The
Petitioners do not contend that Ms. Mosby’s mere
participation in an investigation affects her later
actions; rather the Petitioners contend—consistent
with Buckley—that when a prosecutor undertakes an
investigation and then provides the results of that
investigation to a law enforcement officer (Major
Cogen) for evaluation, the prosecutor acts not as a
prosecutor, but as a person whose actions are
indistinguishable from those of a law enforcement
officer. See Buckley, 509 U.S. at 274 n. 5 (noting that
‘[e]ven after [a] determination [of probable cause]…a
prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’
that is entitled to only qualified immunity.”). The
Fourth Circuit’s ruling upends the required
“functional analysis” and focuses on Ms. Mosby’s
status as a prosecutor and not on the actual
investigation done by Ms. Mosby and her providing
that incomplete and misleading investigation to
Major Cogen.

 15
II.

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MISTAKENLY
APPLIED KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522
U.S. 118, 129 (1997) TO A PROSECUTOR
GIVING LEGAL ADVICE TO A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

The Fourth Circuit erred in concluding that
Ms. Mosby’s providing “legal advice” as to whether
probable cause existed was protected by absolute
immunity.
In Burns, this Court noted that the “[d]ecisions
in later cases are consistent with the functional
approach to immunity employed in Imbler.” Burns,
500 U.S. at 486. This Court held in Burns that “[t]he
prosecutor’s actions at issue here-appearing before a
judge and presenting evidence in support of a motion
for a search warrant-clearly involve the prosecutor’s
‘role as advocate for the State,’ rather than his role as
‘administrator or investigative officer,’ the protection
for which we reserved judgment in Imbler, were
protected by absolute immunity.” Id. at 478.
However, this Court reached a different conclusion
when evaluating the prosecutor’s “legal advice to the
police regarding the use of hypnosis and the existence
of probable cause to arrest petitioner.” Id. at 478.
The next factor to be considered-risk of
vexatious litigation-also does not
support absolute immunity for giving
legal advice. The Court of Appeals
asserted that absolute immunity was
justified because “a prosecutor’s risk of
becoming entangled in litigation based
on his or her role as a legal advisor

 16
to police officer is as likely as the
risks associated with initiating and
prosecuting a case.” We disagree. In the
first place, a suspect or defendant is not
likely to be as aware of a prosecutor’s
role in giving advice as a prosecutor’s
role in initiating and conducting a
prosecution. But even if a prosecutor’s
role in giving advice to the police does
carry with it some risk of burdensome
litigation, the concern with litigation
in our immunity cases is not merely a
generalized concern with interference
with an official’s duties, but rather is a
concern with interference with the
conduct closely related to the judicial
process. Absolute immunity is designed
to free the judicial process from
the harassment and intimidation
associated with litigation. That concern
therefore justifies absolute prosecutorial
immunity only for actions that are
connected with the prosecutor’s role in
judicial proceedings, not for every
litigation-inducing conduct.
Burns, 500 U.S. at 494. “[I]t is incongruous to allow
prosecutors to be absolutely immune from liability for
giving advice to the police, but to allow police officers
only qualified immunity for following the advice.” Id.
The Fourth Circuit nonetheless concluded that
Ms. Mosby’s giving of legal advice to Major Cogen was
controlled by Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129
(1997). Pet. App. 15a-16a. Kalina, however, did not
involve a prosecutor giving legal advice to law

 17
enforcement officers. The prosecutor in Kalina was
entitled to absolute immunity only with respect to the
presentation of an information charging the
defendant with burglary and motion for an arrest
warrant that the prosecutor herself filed with the
court. Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129. All of the actions
analyzed in Kalina were performed only by a
prosecutor. Kalina did not modify this Court’s
holding in Burns that a prosecutor is not entitled to
absolute immunity when giving legal advice
(including legal advice as to probable cause) to law
enforcement officers. The Fourth Circuit’s reliance on
Kalina is in error.
III.

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S HOLDING
THAT A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED TO
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WHEN GIVING
LEGAL
ADVICE
TO
AN
LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONFLICTS
WITH NUMEROUS OTHER CIRCUIT
COURT DECISIONS

Relying on an erroneous interpretation of
Kalina and its own decision in Springmen v.
Williams, 122 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth
Circuit held that Ms. Mosby was entitled to absolute
immunity when she gave legal advice on probable
cause to Major Cogen. Pet. App. at 15a (“And, in
Springmen, we held that a Maryland Assistant
State’s Attorney enjoyed absolute immunity for
reviewing an application for Statement of Charges
prepared by a police officer and for advising the officer
that the facts were sufficiently strong to proceed with
filing the application.”)

 18
The Fourth Circuit’s holdings conflict with
decisions in several other Circuit Courts that have
held that absolute immunity does not apply to a
prosecutor giving legal advice as to probable cause to
other officials. See Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d
1218, 1233–34 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Although the Burns
Court sometimes characterized the prosecutor’s role
as “investigative,” it clearly held that with respect to
advising police that they had probable cause to arrest,
the prosecutor was not entitled to absolute
immunity.”); Loupe v. O’Bannon, 824 F.3d 534, 540
(5th Cir. 2016) (“In Burns, the Supreme Court held
that giving legal advice to police, including advice as
to whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect,
is not a function protected by absolute immunity.”);
Spiess v. Pocono Mountain Reg’l Police Dept., 580 Fed.
Appx. 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2014) (“Such investigative
functions include giving legal advice to the police as
to the existence of probable cause.”); Holden v.
Sticher, 427 Fed. Appx. 749, 751 (11th Cir. 2011)
(“Prosecutors do not receive absolute immunity for
giving legal advice to police where a prosecutor guides
police rather than where a prosecutor prepares his or
her own case.”) (citing Burns); Prince v. Hicks, 198
F.3d 607, 614–15 (6th Cir. 1999).
Review by this Court is appropriate to resolve
this conflict among these Circuit Courts.
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be
granted.

 19
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of October
2018.
/s/ Catherine Flynn
Catherine Flynn
THE LAW FIRM OF CATHERINE FLYNN
217 North Charles Street, 2nd Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 286-1440
(844)222-2460
cflynn@catflynnlaw.com
Counsel for Petitioners