◆ SpookStack

- Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 53 cumspection. Grow v. Fisher, 528 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1975). We should be hesitant to expand the scope of of- ficial activity which, from the perspective of a victim seeking civil redress, stands beyond the constraints of the Constitution. See generally Butz v. Economou, 46 U.S.L.W. 4952, 4960 (June 29, 1978). For us to hold that all of the actions of the defendants in this case should be immune from liability as a matter of law would require us to expand radically the parameters which the Supreme Court has set for the doctrine of of- ficial immunity. This we are unwilling to do. A. State Defendants: Absolute Immunity State defendants Hanrahan, Jalovec, Meltreger, and Sorosky (the Cook County State’s Attorney and three of his assistants) contend that they cannot be found liable. . for the damages alleged by plaintiffs because they enjoy absolute immunity for their actions under the rule of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). The other state defendants claim .a qualified immunity. See Procunier v. Navarette, 484 U.S. 555 (1978); Wodd v. ° Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974). We hold that the four state prosecutors .. have absolute immunity from section 1983 liability for some of their post-raid activities. Most of their allegedly illegal actions, however—including all of their pre-raid activities—must be tested by the standards of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Jmbler did not hold that all of- ficial actions of a state prosecutor are absolutely im- mune from section 1983 liability. Jmbler held only that a prosecutor has absolute immunity “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Imbler, supra 424 U.S. at 431. See Briggs v. Goodwin, 569 F.2d 10 (D.C. Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 46 U.S.L.W. 3780 (June 20, 1978). (prosecutor’s immunity limited to his “advocacy” functions). The Court left standing circuit decisions which, by focusing on “the functional nature of the ac- tivities” rather than the “status” of the prosecutor, held that certain official actions by state prosecutors are en- titled only to qualified immunity. Jmbler, supra, 424 U.S.