In the case of Malley et al. v. Briggs et al., 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers could be held liable for damages if they initiated an arrest without probable cause and a neutral magistrate issued a warrant based on their recommendation. The case arose when Officer Malley arrested Briggs and his wife based on allegations of illegal wiretapping, but lacked sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. A judge issued warrants for their arrests upon Officer Malley's request, but charges were later dropped due to lack of evidence. The Briggs sued under Section 1983 claiming violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures (arrests). In its decision, the court stated that law enforcement officials who "cause" unlawful arrests can be held accountable even if they did not personally carry out those arrests or directly participated in them.

In the dissenting opinion for Malley et al. v. Briggs et al., Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, argued that the majority's decision would have a chilling effect on law enforcement officers' willingness to perform their duties due to fear of personal liability. They contended that an officer should not be held liable if they reasonably believed there was probable cause for an arrest warrant, even if a judge later disagreed with this assessment. The dissenters also criticized the majority's reliance on Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), arguing it did not apply because police officers seeking warrants are performing discretionary functions rather than ministerial ones like in Harlow case.