In the case of Lynne Kalina v. Rodney Fletcher (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor does not have absolute immunity from a lawsuit for damages when acting as a complaining witness in support of an application for an arrest warrant. The case arose after Lynne Kalina, a county prosecuting attorney, made false statements in affidavits to secure an arrest warrant against Rodney Fletcher who was wrongly accused and arrested for burglary based on these misrepresentations. After his exoneration, Fletcher sued Kalina under Section 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights due to her false statement leading to wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. The court held that while prosecutors are generally protected by absolute immunity when performing their functions as advocates, they do not enjoy such protection when carrying out administrative or investigative tasks like attesting to facts before judge during issuance of warrants - roles typically performed by police officers or detectives who only receive qualified immunity.

In the dissenting opinion for Lynne Kalina v. Rodney Fletcher, Justice Scalia argued that a prosecutor acting as a complaining witness should not be granted absolute immunity from prosecution. He contended that this contradicted historical common law principles which only provided such immunity to judges, jurors and witnesses - but not prosecutors who acted in an investigative capacity or as complainants. According to him, the majority's decision was based on policy considerations rather than legal precedent or constitutional interpretation. He also expressed concern about potential misuse of prosecutorial power without checks and balances if they were given absolute immunity even when performing tasks outside their traditional roles.