◆ SpookStack

them” [Slip Op. 60], the majority rejects the qualified immunity defense and threatens the federal appellees with personal liability based on the conduct of the State's Attorney's office. It is’ clear that under the panel's decision, federal law enforcement officials given orders to cooperate with local authorities and to supply them with information henceforth will be required first to determine the lawfulness of the potential use of such information before they . comply. Thus, as, Judge Pell stated in his dissent, the result of the. majority’s decision is "a potentially disastrous curtailment on neces- sary exchanges of information" between law enforcement agencies [Slip Op. 111]. “The rising need for effective law enforcement cannot but . be substantially chilled if there should be the prospect of becoming a defendant ina suit for monetary damages whenever information con- cerning law violations -~is ‘communicated by one agency or offical to another agency or official-having primary jurisdiction over the crime." [Id. at 112.] see The Public Interest Requires Rehearing In Banc To Correct The Panel's Erroneous Denial Of Qualified Immunity. in order to protect Government officials from harassing lawsuits, the Supreme Court has insisted upon "firm application” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent unnecessary trials. See Butz v. - Economou, supra, at 98 S.Ct. 2911; Maiorana v. MacDonald, supra. While cases where the defendants’ state of mind is at issue "do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment," Maiorana v. MacDonald, supra, Slip Op. at 8, the traditional reluctance to grant summary