Crystal Harris is a 23-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department. In 2014, Harris’ then-domestic partner reported her to the Department’s Internal Affairs Department (IAD) for abuse of authority, shortly after Harris accused him of sexually abusing her daughter. IAD investigated Harris and concluded that the complaint against her was unfounded and would be expunged from her disciplinary file.
In 2021, Harris arrested a motorist for driving under the influence. The Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case emailed Harris’ supervisor, explaining that he would not prosecute because Harris was “Do Not Call,” which refers to the District Attorney’s “Do Not Call List,” consisting of police officers whom the DA will not call to testify in court because of IAD complaints filed against them. Harris and her daughter sued District Attorney Larry Krasner and other prosecutors for violating their constitutional rights, and for inflicting emotional distress. The district court granted Krasner’s motion to dismiss, holding that Harris had failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right, and that prosecutors were immune from the lawsuit. Harris appealed to the Third Circuit, which affirmed.
The Third Circuit found that the district court properly found Krasner and other attorneys in the DA’s office to be absolutely immune from a suit stemming from required disclosures under Brady v. Maryland. It noted that prosecutors are required to disclose evidence “which may well alter the jury’s judgment of the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness.” The United States Supreme Court has held that district attorneys are immune from civil liability when fulfilling their Brady obligations.
The Court rejected Harris’ argument that the IAD file at issue in this case was not Brady material, but rather “false claims brought by a convicted rapist in retaliation against Harris for reporting the rapes,” which were ultimately deemed unfounded by IAD and expunged from her personnel file. The Court explained that the test for absolute immunity in this context is not whether the IAD file was Brady material, but rather whether a reasonable prosecutor would recognize the disclosure as clearly outside his jurisdiction to represent the state before the Court. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Third Circuit noted that prosecutors should err on the side of disclosure when unsure about whether information is disclosable under Brady. Therefore, the Court found that the district attorneys involved in the disclosure of Harris’ IAD file were immune, because their decision to disclose was reasonable.
Harris v. Krasner, No. 23-2068, 2024 WL 3498600 (3d. Cir., 2024).