The Burns decision involved a woman placed under arrest by the police in accord with legal advice provided by a local prosecutor that the police had probable cause for the arrest. The prosecutor charged the woman with the attempted murder of her two sons. A county court judge issued a search warrant based on misleading testimony from the advising prosecutor and one of the arresting officer. However, the prosecutor dropped all charges when the trial judge granted the mother's motion to suppress statements given to police while under hypnosis. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions in part. It noted that advising police officers was not a traditional prosecutorial duty, so that immunizing such an advice with an impenetrable shield of absolute immunity would work an injustice. This decision resolved the confusion that evolved in previous appellate court decisions and established that the only place where an overzealous, vindictive, or malicious prosecutor is certain to retain immunity from Section 1983 damages is the courtroom itself. Footnotes