In Malley v. Briggs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police officers are only entitled to qualified immunity in civil suits concerning the issuance of an unconstitutional arrest warrant and the standard of review in such cases is to be the objective reasonableness test. The decision is contrary to the values recognized by circuit courts of providing greater immunity to police because of their essential function in the overall prosecutorial process. It also disregards the well established Federal rule that the magistrate, not the police officer, determines probable cause. Finally, the articulation of the objective reasonableness test in Malley is inconsistent with previous applications of the test; consequently, is confusing to those representing clients of unconstitutional police conduct. It is suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court must address whether the subjective element of the test must be proved to establish a cause of action for civil damages. It also must establish guidelines for magistrates and police to assist them in determining probable cause. Once these issues are addressed, the Court may better effectuate the twin goals of protecting the public from police misconduct and protecting police from frivolous civil suits. 255 footnotes.