Renenger v. State, 426 P.3d 559

In Oct. 2012 Jefferson County Sheriff's Office received a report that 10‑year‑old A.R. performed nonconsensual oral sex on 11‑year‑old J.S.; the deputy prepared an incident report and forwarded it to the County Attorney.
Jefferson County appointed special deputy prosecutor Steven Shapiro, who reviewed the JCSO reports and youth probation input, signed an affidavit asserting he had reason to believe probable cause existed, and moved for leave to file a delinquency petition against A.R.; the court granted leave and the petition was filed.
A forensic interview of J.S. later showed the allegations were greatly exaggerated and the delinquency proceedings were dismissed.
A.R.’s parents (the Renengers) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (unreasonable seizure/due process), Dorwart (municipal liability), malicious prosecution, and negligence against Shapiro, the State, and Jefferson County. The State and Shapiro moved to dismiss on absolute prosecutorial immunity grounds; Jefferson County moved for summary judgment invoking the public duty doctrine.
The District Court granted dismissal on prosecutorial immunity and granted Jefferson County summary judgment under the public duty doctrine; the Renengers appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor (Shapiro) and State are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for signing the probable‑cause affidavit	Shapiro acted as a complaining witness by attesting to underlying facts in the affidavit and thus lost immunity (Kalina rule)	Shapiro merely attested to his belief that the externally gathered reports established probable cause and was functioning as an advocate, so absolute immunity applies	Court held Shapiro (and State) entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity — his affidavit expressed belief in probable cause based on others’ reports, not personal vouching
Whether public duty doctrine bars negligence claim against Jefferson County / JCSO for forwarding report without forensic interview	Forwarding the report and failing to investigate (no forensic interview) were affirmative/negligent acts causing harm, so public duty doctrine inapplicable	Forwarding the report was discretionary conduct within JCSO’s general duty to the public (an omission, not an affirmative act); public duty doctrine bars liability	Court held public duty doctrine applies; JCSO’s conduct was a discretionary forwarding/omission and not a cognizable affirmative act creating liability

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors have absolute immunity for advocacy functions)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (prosecutor loses absolute immunity when functioning as complaining witness by personally vouching for facts in affidavit)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (distinction between prosecutorial advocacy and investigative/witness functions)
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (§ 1983 read against common‑law tort background; immunities as defenses)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (common‑law immunities remain defenses to § 1983)
Ronek v. Gallatin County, 227 Mont. 514, 740 P.2d 1115 (Montana recognition of prosecutorial immunity)
Rosenthal v. County of Madison, 339 Mont. 419, 170 P.3d 493 (absolute immunity for traditional prosecutorial functions)
State v. Holt, 332 Mont. 426, 139 P.3d 819 (probable cause standard for filing information/youth petition)
State v. Woods, 203 Mont. 401, 662 P.2d 579 (probable cause/arrest warrant principles)
Bassett v. Lamantia, 391 Mont. 309, 417 P.3d 299 (public duty doctrine inapplicable where injury resulted from affirmative police act)
Kent v. City of Columbia Falls, 379 Mont. 190, 350 P.3d 9 (distinguishing omissions under public duty doctrine from affirmative acts)
Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, 983 P.2d 972 (public duty doctrine and special‑relationship exception)