Safouane

*781 MEMORANDUM **

The Safouanes’ claims fad because the defendants are immune from suit.

The prosecuting attorney had absolute immunity from civil liability in connection with the filing of a criminal charge, because she was performing the traditional functions of a prosecutor, notwithstanding allegations of negligence, improper motive, or lack of probable cause.

Likewise, the detectives are entitled to immunity. Because they reasonably believed that probable cause existed, they are entitled to qualified immunity, even if they were mistaken, so long as their conclusion was objectively reasonable. 2 Here, the Safouanes have presented no evidence that probable cause did not exist or that the officers acted improperly.

The medical examiners are likewise entitled to immunity. The Safouanes’ state law claims are barred by state statutory immunity. 3 As to the federal claims, under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, an official is entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should have been aware. 4 The Safouanes’ right to prohibit a statutorily mandated autopsy 5 was *782 not…