Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 42-2 Filed 08/13/2008 Page 19 of 27 <br /> (8) The prosecuting attorney charging this case had no other documents <br /> other than the police reports prepared by the Hawaii Police <br /> Department; and <br /> (9) All of the facts of the prosecuting attorney are quasi judicial in nature. <br /> Even if Plaintiff can show the prosecuting attorney had an improper motive, <br /> the functions which the prosecuting attorney performed in this case clearly entitle <br /> them to the protections of absolute immunity under the principles cited herein. <br /> C. Conduct of Malate Did Not Violate Any Constitutional Rights <br /> of the Plaintiff. <br /> In addition, any claim that the actions of a public prosecutor give rise to a <br /> §1983 violation require that a violation of the United States Constitution or a <br /> Federal statute has occurred. It is the position of the County Defendants that <br /> Plaintiff can prove no such violation. <br /> 1. No Viable Fourth Amendment Seizure Claim. <br /> A violation of the Fourth Amendment requires an intentional acquisition <br /> of physical control of the person. Brower v County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596, <br /> 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1381 (1989). In analyzing malicious prosecution cases pursuant <br /> to §1983 it is required that there be a seizure by state arrest or imprisonment, <br /> Becker v Kroll, 494 F.3d 904, 914 (2007). The Becker Court went on to note: <br /> 12 <br />